LGOP No. 354 of 2000
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Present : Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao., I Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Monday, this the 27th day of July, 2020
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Between: Smt. C.S.Kanakamaniamma, H/o. Sri K.S.Nair, Age: 49 Years R/o. B-155, Sainikpuri
Rangareddy District....Petitioner
And
1. G. Rama Rao S/o. G. Venkaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt Servant, R/o. H.No. 31-55/8/1, Bank Colony, Ramakrishnapuram, Near Railway Over Bridge, Malkajgiri, Municipality, R.R.District.
2. P. Pandu S/o. Sri P. Pentaiah, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-4-371/9/1, Krishnanagar, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.
3. P. Pentaiah S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged about: Major, R/o. H.No. 6-4-373/8, Krishnanagar, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.
4. P. Krishna S/o. Pentaiah, Aged: major, R/o. H.No. 26-35, Brindavan Colony, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad.
5. B. Premachandra Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-90, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
6. Vijayachandra Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-88, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
7. B. Harinath Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-89, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
8. Yadagiri S/o. Narayana, Aged: Major, R/o. 5-90, Chintal, Kuttrettapur, Medchal.
9. Jayaprakash Reddy, S/o. Not known, Aged: Major, R/o. 1-10-170, Near BHEL, Bowanpally, Secunderabad.
10. P. Sekhar Babu S/o. P. Pentaiah, Aged: Major, R/o. 6-4-373/8, Krishna Nagar, Bholakpur,
Secunderabad....Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. D. Jawaharlal, Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri Y. Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and of R2, R4, R5, R7 and R10 set exparte and of claim against R3, R6 and R9 dismissed and the case against R8 was given up, and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the petitioner as the owner of the land bearing H.No. 31-55/8/1 (Plot No. 124) in Sy.No. 276/1, admeasuring 266 Sq.yards, situated at Bank Colony near Railway over Bridge,
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, to declare the respondents are the land grabbers, to evict the respondent No.1 from the land grabbed by him, to direct the respondent No.1 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the land grabbed by him and to direct the respondent
No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the land from 8-4-94 to 1-12-99 and also for future damages from 2-12-99 till the date of delivery of possession @ Rs.1000/- per month.
2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing plot No. 124 at Sy.No. 276/1, admeasuring 266
Sq.yards, situated at Bank Colony near Railway over Bridge,
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from the Sanjivaiah Nagar Co-operative House and
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Building Society Limited under a registered sale deed dated 17-03-1982 bearing Document No. 1209/1982, which inturn purchased 2500 Sq.yards of land from one Sri Ninelal who was the real owner of the property. Originally the Ninelal had the land more than 3 acres in Sy.No. 376/1 of which a portion of the land was acquired by the railway for laying a railway line and after the said acquisition there remained land to an extent of 2500 Sq.yards, which was sold by the said Ninelal to the Sanjivaiah Nagar Co-Op House and
Building Society Limited., on 27-02-1982 under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 965/1982. Prior to the said sale Mr. Ninelal has obtained permission from the competent authority from ULC and also from
Bhagyanagar Land Development Authority, Hyderabad for sale of the land and formed a lay out along with the neighbouring land owner Sri Ranga Reddy, who was the owner of land in Sy.No. 242 and 243 and thus a uniform lay out of all the three Sy.Nos. 276/1, 242 and 243, belonging to Ninelal and
Ranga Reddy was formed and plots which fell to the share of Ninelal was sold away to Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-Op House and Building Society Limited and after the said purchase the society has made the said land into plots and allotted to its members, of which plot No. 124 was allotted to the petitioner and after the purchase the petitioner has fenced the plot with stone pillars and barbed wire and thereafter in the year 1983 the petitioner has availed loan by depositing his original sale deed pertaining to the said property from
Syndicate Bank, Sainikpur Branch, Secunderabad and subsequently in the year 1998 the loan was discharged.
3.The respondent No.1 with some fabricated documents and in collusion with the other respondents has attempted to grab the above said plot No. 19- 03-1992 along with some unsocial elements, upon which the petitioner filed a
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 suit vide OS No. 332/1992 on the file of Principal District Munsiff now
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy District
at Saroornagar for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent No.1 and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit property, wherein in IA No. 433/1992 the lower Court was pleased to order interim injunction against the respondent No.1. That the said suit was dismissed for default for non-appearance of the petitioner on the given dates and before the petitioner could file a restoration petition the respondent No.1 with the assistance of the other respondents has encroached over the above said plot and built a house thereon and the earlier counsel on record dodged the proceedings because of his personal inconvenience and thus the petitioner has lost the possession of the property in question and since the said suit was only for injunction and no useful purpose will be served even if the said suit is restored because the petitioner has lost his possession over the property in question, the petitioner has abandoned the said proceedings and filed the present petition for recovery of the possession of the said property ejecting the respondent No.1 from the above said property who has grabbed the land basing on the false documents with the assistance of the other respondents. Several land grabbing cases are pending against the respondent No.2 and others before the Court and the acts of the respondents fall within the meaning of land grabbing activities, therefore they are to be declared that they are land grabbers within the meaning of the act.
4.That one Mr. P. Pandu who is a notorious land grabber, with the help of fabricated GPA of the owners of the land in Sy.Nos. 242 and 243 of
Malkajgiri Village, Ranga Reddy District had been selling away not only the plots in Sy.Nos. 242 and 243 but also the plots in Sy.No. 276/1 by showing
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 every plot to be the part of Sy.Nos. 242 and 243 and the said mischief could be done because Mr. Ninelal the owner of Sy.No.276/1 and Sri Ranga Reddy the owner of Sy.Nos. 242 and 243 have formed a common layout of their lands because their lands are abutting each other and during the life time of
Mr. Ranga Reddy he has sold away all the plots under his survey numbers to various purchasers and since Mr. Ninelal sold his entire land to the
Sanjeevaiah nagar Co-Op House and Building Society Limited and the said society has sold the plots to its members in Sy.No. 276/1 and the above said land grabber Mr. P. Pandu basing on the fabricated GPAs had been harassing the several bonafide purchasers and extorting money by blackmailing them and Mr. P. Pandu also mislead the innocent persons and trapped them by selling the disputed plots to them and with the background of the facts as stated above the petitioner submits that she is a poor middle class lady and had purchased the said plot by investing all her life time earnings for purpose of the above said plot with an intention to construct a house of her own, but the respondent No.1, who is a police constable by profession by using his influence in collusion with the other respondents has grabbed the property in question belonging to the petitioner and prayed to declare her as the owner of the land bearing H.No. 31-55/8/1 (Plot No. 124) in Sy.No. 276/1, admeasuring 266 Sq.yards, situated at Bank Colony near Railway over Bridge,
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, to declare the respondents as land grabbers, to evict the respondent No.1 from the land grabbed by him, to direct the respondent No.1 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the land grabbed by him and to direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the land from 8-4-94 to 1-12-99 and also for future damages from 2-12-99 till the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 date of delivery of possession @ Rs.1000/- per month.
5.After receipt of the notice, the respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and also denied that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the premises bearing Plot No. 124 allegedly in Sy.No.
276/1 admeasuring 266 Sq.yards situated at Bank Colony, Near Railway
Bridge, Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, R.R.District and further denied that the said Ninelal had obtained permission from the competent authority from ULC and also from Bhagyanagar Land Development Authority,
Hyderabad for sale of land and formed a layout along with the neighboring land owner of Sri Ranga Reddy who is the owner of land in Sy.no. 243 & 244 and it is also denied that a uniform layout of all the three Sy.Nos.276/1, 242 and 243 belonging to Ninelal was formed. It is further denied that the plots which fell to the share of Ninelal was sold away to Sanjeevaiah Nagar
Co-Op House and Building Society Limited and it is also denied that the respondent No.1 fabricated documents in collusion with the other respondents and attempted to grab the property and as such, the petitioner filed a suit vide OS No. 332/1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif now Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad (East & North), R.R.District at Saroornagar for perpetual injunction. In fact, the said suit is filed against the respondent No.1 without having valid title and possession over the said plot of land bearing
Plot No. 124 falling in Sy.No. 242 & 243 and initially the petitioner though was never in physical possession of the said plot could obtain exparte injunction against the respondent No.1 on 20-03-1992 and under the guise of said injunction tried to take over the physical possession of the plot No. 124 in Sy.No. 242 & 243, when she failed to succeed in her illegal attempt and after entering the appearance of this respondent in the above suit has
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 converted the said suit from perpetual injunction into one of mandatory injunction and it is pertinent to mention here that in the said suit the petitioner had also filed an IA No. 3907/1994 seeking injunction against the respondent No.1 from raising future construction. However the said Court was pleased to dismiss the said IA No. 3907/1994 on merits vide order dated 03- 07-1995 holding that the said plot is situated in Sy.Nos. 242 & 243 and not in Sy.No. 276/1 as alleged by the petitioner. It is denied that before the petitioner could file restoration petition, the respondent No.1 with assistance of other respondents has encroached over the said plot and built a house thereon and it is within the knowledge of the petitioner and his earlier counsel on record about the alleged dodging of the proceedings and since the petitioner was never in possession of the said plot of land in question at any point of time, the alleged loosing possession over the same doesn’t arise and the petitioner having kept silent for 4 years and having realized that they cannot maintain a petition for restoration of possession in the said suit which was dismissed on 19-06-1996, came up with a false plea that the said property was grabbed by the respondent basing on the false documents with the assistance of other respondents and filed the present case under the provisions of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the present case doesn’t fall within the meaning of Land Grabbing and hence the same is liable to be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.
6.It is contended that the respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises No. 31-55/8/1 in plot No. 124 falling in Sy.No. 242 & 243 admeasuring 266 Sq.yards having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing vide Doc.No. 2601/1991, dated 25-01-1991 from the respondent No.1 who is the registered GPA holder (Regd No. 127/1989) of
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Sri. B. Ranga Reddy and his sons, who are the pattedars and possessors of all that the land bearing Sy.No. 242 & 243 admeasuring Ac. 9-10 gts situated at
Malkajgiri village, Ramakrishnapuram, R.R.District and the said pattedars have converted the said land in Sy.No. 242 & 243 into residential plots of land and sold the same through their Registered GPA holder Mr. P. Pandu who is the respondent No.1 herein to various purchasers and the respondent
No.1 purchased the premises No. 31-55/8/1 in Plot No. 124 admeasuring 266
Sq.yards falling in the said Sy.No. 242 & 243 from the said pattedars through the respondent No.1 under a registered sale deed and after the purchase of the said plot the respondent No.1 had constructed a compound wall surrounding the said premises and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the respondent No.1 had obtained permission and constructed a building after obtaining loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited over the same. While things stood thus the petitioner tried to dispossess the respondent No.1 fro the physical possession of the said premises under the guise of an exparte ad interim injunction passed on 20-03-1992 in IA No.
433/1992 in OS No. 332/1992 on the file of Principal District Munsiff,
Hyderabad (East and North), R.R.District and when she failed in her attempts, she converted the said suit for perceptual injunction into one for mandatory injunction and it is pertinent to mention here that in the said suit the petitioner had also filed an IA No. 3907/1994 seeking injunction against the respondent No.1 from raising further construction and however the said Court was pleased to dismiss the said IA No. 3907/1994 on merits vide orders dated 03-07-1995 holding that the said plot situated in Sy.No. 242 & 243 and not in Sy.No. 276/1 as alleged by the petitioner. Subsequently the said suit was dismissed on 19-06-1996 and it is relevant to mention here that earlier the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 vendors of the respondent No.1 in the year 1989 have filed a suit bearing OS
No. 360/1989 on file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy
District against the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Sanjeevaiah Co-Op Housing
Society and five others for declaration of title and perpetual in respect of the land in Sy.No. 242 to an extent of Ac. 5-00 and Sy.No. 243 to an extent of
Ac. 4-10 gts situated at Malkajgiri village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said suit was decreed on 12-07-1991 and the same remained unchallenged till date and further the memo issued by the MRO, Malkajgiri in proceedings No. A/1543/92 will clinchingly establish the title of the respondent’s vendor and the respondent over the plot bearing No. 124 which fall in Sy.Nos. 242 & 243 and the land covered by the petitioner’s sale deed is not in existence at all and the petitioner under the garb of her fabricated sale deed is trying to take possession of the property belonging to respondent
No.1 in Sy.No. 242 & 243 and the petitioner having miserably failed to establish her title and possession over the said property falling in Sy.Nos.242 & 243 and having lost the civil case bearing NO. OS No. 332/1992 on the file of Munsiff Magistrate, Hyderabad (East & North), R.R.District, she choose to file the present case to create an unending litigation which is frivolous and vexatious in nature and prayed to dismiss the petition.
7.R2, R4, R5, R7 and R10 set exparte and of claim against R3, R6 and
R9 dismissed and the case against R8 was given up.
8.Basing on the said pleadings of both the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for trial:
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
1) Whether the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property?
2) Whether the respondents are the land grabbers of the petition schedule property.
3) To what relief?
9.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself is examined as P.W-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A23. The petitioner further examined her husband as P.W-2 in support of her case. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 examined himself as R.W-1 and got marked Ex.B- 1 to B-13.
10.It is also further pertinent to mention that during the course of trial, initially the MRO report was received and the petitioner submitted her objections and during the course of arguments the petitioner filed IA No. 604 of 2018 seeking directions to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to conduct a fresh survey and identify the survey number and a survey was conducted and a report was submitted on 26-08-2019 which is part of record.
11.Heard both sides on record. Perused the material placed.
12.Issue No. 1:
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule property which is subject plot in the year 1982 and after that she fenced the plot with stone pillars and barbed wire and she also availed loan by depositing the original sale deed from Syndicate Bank,
Sainikpuri Branch and they also discharged the loan and as per the petitioner it is contended that she is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property having purchased the same from Sanjeevaiah Nagar Cooperative
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 House Building Society Limited under a registered sale deed bearing No. 1209 of 1982 dated 17-03-1982 ie., Ex.A-1 and whereas the said Sanjeevaiah Nagar
Cooperative House Building Society in turn purchased the property comprising of 2500 square yards of land from one Ninelal who is the absolute owner and possessor of the in Survey No. 376/1 admeasuring 3 acres of land at
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, RR District and it is also contended that a portion of the land was acquired by the Railway Department for laying railwayline and after acquisition of the land, 2500 square yards of land was left over, which was sold to Sanjeevaiah Nagar Cooperative House
Building Society under registered sale deed bearing document No. 965 of 1982 dated 27-02-1982 ie., Ex.A-18 and prior to that sale, the said Ninelal has obtained permission from ULC and also from Bhagyanagar Land
Development Authority for sale of the land and formed a layout along with the neighbouring land owner Sri Ranga Reddy who was also owner of the land in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and thereby both of them formed a uniform layout for all the three survey numbers and that the plots which fell to the share of the Ninelal was sold away to Sanjeevaiah Nagar Cooperative House
Building Society Ltd and the same was allotted to its members and having purchased the petition schedule property, ie., Plot No. 124, in the year 1982 the petitioner is in possession of the property.
13.In order to prove that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property, the petitioner herein besides examining herself as P.W-1, she also relied upon Ex.A-1 which is registered sale deed bearing document
No. 1209 of 1982 dated 17-03-1982 wherein the plaintiff being member of the said society is allotted with Plot No. 124 in Survey No. 276/1 admeasuring 266 square yards and further to prove that the petitioner has purchased the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 property and that her vendor has purchased the same and to show the title of her vendor, she also relied upon the sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner ie.,Ex.A-18 which shows that under the said document No. 965 of 1982 dated 27-02-1982 which is executed by Naini Lal in favour of the vendor of the petitioner conveyed the land admeasuring 2500 square yards in Survey No.
276/1 situated at Ramachandrapuram, Malkajgiri Village, RR District. Further, to prove her ownership, the petitioner also relied upon Ex.A-22 and Ex.A-23 which are encumbrance certificates,which show the name of the petitioner.
14.On perusal of the case of the respondent No. 1, the main contention of the respondent No. 1 is that the respondent No. 1 is also claiming the said plot ie., Plot No. 124. The contention of the respondent No. 1 who is contesting the claim of the petitioner is that the suit plot ie., Plot No. 124 fall within Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and not in Survey No. 276/1 of
Ramachandrapuram and simultaneously, the respondent No. 1 is also claiming title to the suit plot vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 2601 of 1991 dated 25-05-1991 executed by P. Pandu in his individual capacity conveying Plot No. 124 ie., suit plot admeasuring 266.66 square yards in
Survey Nos. 242 and 243 of Ramachandrapuram Village and it is also the case of the respondent No. 1 that the said plot fall within Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and that he also obtained permission and sanction for construction of house from Malkajgiri Municipality dated 07-04-1992 and constructed a house thereon by availing loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited and that respondent No. 1 is in lawful possession of the property and it is also the case of the respondent No. 1 that originally one B. Ranga Reddy and his sons were the pattedars and possessor of the land in Survey No. 242 and 243 total admeasuring Ac.9-10gts situated at Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Mandal, RR
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 District, who converted the said land into residential plots under a layout and the respondent No. 1 purchased the petition schedule property ie., Plot No.
124 in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 under a registered sale deed from the registered GPA holder P. Pandu.
15.It is the specific contention of the respondent No. 1 that the petition schedule plot does not fall under Survey No.276/1 and on the other hand, it falls in Survey Nos. 242 and 243. In support of his case, the respondent No.
1 relied upon Ex.B-1 which is registered sale deed bearing document No.
2601 of 1991 dated 25-05-1991, Ex.A-2 GPA, Ex.B-3 building permission
dated 07-04-1992, Ex.B-4 sanctioned plan, Ex.B-5 loan offer letter, Ex.B-6 and
B-7 loan payment receipts issued by LIC, Ex.B-8 pahanies for the years 1978 to 1991 in respect of Survey Nos. 242 and 243, Ex.B-9 to B-11 certified copies of orders in OS No.360 of 1989.
16.Further, the petitioner also examined her husband as P.W-2 in support of her case. On perusal of the cross examination of P.W-2, it is suggested by the respondent No. 1 to P.W-1 that P.W-1 did not choose to file any document with regard to the total extent of land in Survey No. 276/1 is Ac.5- 35gts and also did not file any document to show that the extent of land acquired by the railways out of Survey No. 276/1 and he has not filed the document or proceedings to show that the ULC has granted permission to
Nainilal to alienate the land in Survey No. 276/1 in favour of the society and further admitted that the land in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 of
Ramakrishnapuram Village beloning to Ranga Reddy and his son.
17.It is elicited in the cross-examination that he has not filed any document to show that the land in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 are clubbed
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 with the land in Survey Nos. 276/1, except Ex.A-10. It is suggested to P.W-2 that the entire land in Survey No. 276/1 was acquired by the Railways and there was no land available to be sold in the said survey number to them by the society and the society has not purchased the plots but purchased the open land in Survey No. 276/1, which P.W-2 denied the same. Further, it is admitted by P.W-2 that there is no whisper about the alleged common layout in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and 276/1 in Ex.A-1.
18.It is further suggested to P.W-2 that Ex.A-5 and A6 are not related to the petition schedule property, which was denied by P.W-2 and he admitted that Ex.A-7 cc of sale deed No. 4556 of 1997 dated 05-11-1997 is not related to petition schedule property and that Ex.A-8 certificate issued by the office of MRO does not disclose that the petition schedule property falls in Survey
Nos. 2761/. It is also elicited that Ex.A-12 and A-13 are not related to the petition schedule property, but it relates to Plot No. 138. Ex.A-7, A8, A9,
A10, A11 and A13 though does not pertains to present petition schedule property, but it is between 3rd parties, as such, it cannot be relied upon nor it is helpful to the case of the petitioner or respondent. Even Ex.A-16 and
A17 also does not pertain to the petition schedule property, but they are pertaining to Plot Nos. 167126 and 127 and they are filed only to support the case of the petitioner that they fall under Survey No. 276/1 along with Plot
No. 124.
19.As it is seen from the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, the petitioner is nothing to do with the land in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and the main contention of the petitioner is that the petition schedule plot ie., Plot No. 124 falls within Survey Nos. 276/1, but not in Survey Nos. 242 of 243 and it is
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 also not in dispute that both the parties as per their own sale deeds claiming
Plot No. 124 individually and it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the Plot No. 124 does not falls within Survey Nos. 276/1 and in support of his contention, the respondent No. 1 examined himself as R.W-1 and relied upon Ex.B-1 registered sale deed bearing document No. 2601 of 1991 dated 25-05-1991 and contends that as per Ex.B-1 he purchased the plot No. 124 admeasuring 266.66 square yards which is suit plot and it is also the case of the respondent No.1 that he has obtained permission for construction of the house and constructed a building over the petition schedule plot.
20.There is no denial or dispute with regard to the title deeds of both the parties. As per the petitioner, originally the said land in Survey Nos. 276/1 belongs to one Naini Lal and it is the case of the respondent No. 1 that land in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 belongs to one B. Ranga Reddy and his sons.
The main defence of the respondent is that the suit plot No. 124 does not fall within Survey No. 276/1, but it falls within Survey Nos. 242 and 243. Upon perusal of the rival contention of both the parties, it clearly shows that as per the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 it shows that as per Ex.A-1 sale deed, the petitioner purchased Plot No. 124 in Survey No. 276/1 situated at
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Village and Municipality, RR District which was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1982 from Sanjeevaiah Nagar
Cooperative House Building Society Limited. As per the petitioner, the boundaries of the suit plot are North : Plot No. 125, South : Plot No. 123,
East : 25 feet wide road and West : Plot No. 121 and even admittedly as per the petitioner, to the east a house exists as on the date of filing of the petition. Nowhere it is denied about the said boundaries and as per the sale deed of the petitioner ie., Ex.A-1 it shows that the extent of land purchased
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 by the petitioner is 266 square yard in Plot No. 124 with boundaries North :
Plot No. 125, South : Plot No. 123, East : 25 feet wide road and West : Plot
No. 121.
21.On perusal of Ex.B-1 sale deed of the respondent No. 1, it shows that the boundaries of the Plot No. 124 ie., North : 25 feet wide road, South :
Plot Nos. 121 and 122 East : H. No. 31-55/8/2 and West : Neighbour’s property. As per Ex.B-3 building permission, it shows that towards north side of the plot “25 feet road” is shown towards north and on the southern sides
Plot Nos. 121 ad 122 and on the west there is neighbours property.
22.Coming to the report of the Survey and Land Records, even as per the report of the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, it shows that the said plot is on the east side abutting to the road and it is in Survey No. 276 and as per the report of the MRO, it is submitted that he has inspected the site at Survey
Nos. 276 of Malkajgiri Village and conducted survey with reference to the records and found that the Plot No. 124 is located in Survey No. 276 of
Malkajgiri Village and during his survey on the spot one RCC roofed building
G+1 is existing on the Plot No. 124 falling in Survey No.276 and as per the rough sketch annexed to the said report, it would show that towards east of the said plot there is a road and as per the boundaries of the plot, it is correlates with the boundaries mentioned by the petitioner in the petition and as well as in his sale deed, whereas as per the boundaries of the respondent it shows that road was abutting towards north side of the plot. Whereas, as per the report of the MRO it clearly shows that the said plot is abutted by the road towards east and as such, the physical existence of the plot as per the report would clearly show that the said property was purchased by the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 petitioner which fall within Survey Nos. 276 which is bounded by East : 25 feet road, North : Plot No. 125, South Plot No. 123 and West : Plot No. 121 and as per the petitioner he has purchased the said plot from Sanjeevaiah
Nagar Cooperative House and Building Society Ltd., and there is no dispute with regard to the passing of title from Naini Lal to Sanjeevaiah Nagar
Cooperative Housing and Building Society Limited and from the said society to the petitioner.
23.Simultaneously, there is also no dispute with regard to the passing of the title by P. Pandu who sold the property ie., Plot No. 124 in favour of the respondent, but it clearly shows that there the boundaries of the both the plots are not tallying with each other as per their respective title deed.
Further, as per the respondent No. 1, on perusal of the evidence of R.W-1 who filed his chief affidavit reiterating the averments made in the counter and it is the specific case of the respondent No. 1 that the said plot was not falling in Survey No. 276/1, but the said plot falls within Survey Nos. 242 and 243. But, the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 coupled with the sale deed and the link documents filed by the petitioner ie., Ex.A-1, A5 and A6 would clearly show that the petitioner has purchased Plot No. 124 in Survey No.
276/1 situated at Ramachandrapuram Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, RR District from its lawful owners. Simultaneously, it is clearly evident from the evidence of R.W-1 and the sale deed filed by the respondent under Ex.B-1 and the boundaries mentioned by the respondent are that in respect of Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 are that East : H. No. 31-55/8/2, West :
Neighbour’s Property, North : 25 feet road and South : Plot Nos. 121 and 122.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
24.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the said property which is said to have been purchased by the respondent under the said sale deed was not executed by the original pattadar and in fact, the said
P. Pandu is a land grabber who sold the plots in Survey No. 276/1 showing them as though falling under Survey No. 242 and 243 for wrongful gain including the plot of the petitioner and that he sold the plots in his individual name, but not as the GPA holder of Ranga Reddy and others and further contended that the said P. Pandu is not having any title and as such, the execution of sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1 is not a valid transfer of title. Though, it clearly shows that subsequent to the said sale deed of the respondent there are certain transactions which took place in respect of the respondent by obtaining the land and permission for construction of the building, but even as per the building permission which was obtained for Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 of
Ramachandrapuram Village but not for Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos. 276/1 and it is also further argued that the alleged Ex.B-5 loan offer letter issued by
LIC though obviously the same is true, but it is issued without knowing the dispute with regard to the survey number and might have sanctioned the loan which will neither take away the right of the petitioner nor confer any rights on the respondent and further argued that more over the LIC officials have not conducted survey or investigate as to the property offered as mortgage falls in which survey number an they simply go by the documentary flow of title.
25.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that further Ex.A- 8 pahanies which the respondent relied upon though they belongs to B.
Ranga Reddy and sons as pattadars of the lands in Survey Nos. 242 and 243,
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 but the dispute is with regard to the location of the suit plot, whether it is in
Survey Nos. 242 and 243 or in the Survey No. 276/1.
26.On perusal of the cross-examination of R.W-1, it is admitted by R.W-1 that as per Ex.B-1 sale deed it does not disclose the capacity of P. Pandu as original pattadar/vendor and also admitted that the main door of his house is facing towards North and Plot No. 123 is located on the west of their Plot
No. 124 and further admitted that one V. Uday Bhasker Rao is the owner of
Plot No. 125 which is located on the east of his Plot No. 124, but he denied the suggestion that only the Plot No. 124 but even Plot Nos. 123, 125, 120 and 121 they are the surrounding plots comprised in Survey No. 276/1. He denied that the petitioner purchased Plot No. 124 from Sanjeevaiah Nagar
Cooperative House and Building Society Ltd under Ex.A-1. It is also admitted that the plot of the respondent was also covered under a layout. It is also admitted that Ranga Reddy along Nainelal have alone formed the common layout of the respective lands in Survey Nos. 276/1, 242 and 243 and he also admitted that Ranga Reddy is not the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 276 and 276/1.
27.On perusal of the evidence of both the parties and the documents filed therein and particularly basing on the title deeds of the petitioner and the link documents filed by the petitioner it would clearly show that the petitioner is the owner of the Plot No. 124 in Survey No. 276/1 and it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has no valid title or interest over the plot No. 124, which is said to have been purchased in Survey Nos.
242 and 243 from one P. Pandu. Admittedly, on perusal of the sale deed of the respondent No. 1 under Ex.B-1 it clearly shows that the said P. Pandu
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 nomniclature, it shows that the name of P. Pandu, S/o. P. Pentaiah, who called as Vendor said to have executed the sale deed and even the description of the said title and also in respect of the ownership of the vendor discloses that the he is the absolute owner of house bearing No. 31-55/8/1 on Plot No.
124 in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 admeasuring 266.66 square yards or 222.93 square meters situated at Ramakrishnapuram under Malkajgiri Municipality,
RR District, but nowhere in the said sale deed it is mentioned as to how the said P. Pandu acquired title over the said plot and the same has not been explained in the said sale deed and the source of the title is not properly explained in the said sale deed and it also clearly shows that the Plot No.
124 is in Survey Nos. 242 and 243, but not in Survey No. 276/1.
28.Though the respondent has produced GPA, under Ex.B-2, but it shows that the said sale deed under Ex.B-1 was executed on 25-05-1991 and it is also pertinent to mention here that as per GPA under Ex.B-2, B. Ranga
Reddy, B. Premachandar Reddy, B. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, B. Harinath Reddy have nominated and constituted P. Pandu and one C. Sekhar Babu as their true and lawful attorney for the purpose of performing any other acts such as to develop the said property and also to negotiate the terms to sell the property to the prospective purchasers and enter into agreement of sale or agreements with the prospective purchasers and receive the purchase money and to sign all such deeds or instruments which he shall considered necessary and enter into such covenants, to present any conveyance for registration that to in respect of the property mentioned there in that is agricultural land admeasuring Ac.9-10gs bearing Survey Nos. 242 and 243/A situated at
Malkajgiri Village, excluding the railway track with boundaries of land ie.,
North : Land bearing Survey No. 277/D, South : Land bearing Survey No.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 243/A, East : Road and West : Land bearing Survey No. 276.
29.It shows that the said GPA was executed in favour of two agents ie., P.
Pandu and P. Sekhar Babu that too on 15-07-1989. No doubt the said land in
Survey Nos. 242 and 243 belongs to B. Ranga Reddy. AS per the sale deed under Ex.B-1 it shows that only single vendor executed the same ie., P.
Pandu, but not as contended by the respondent that the said property was sold by P. Pandu as GPA of the original owners. Admittedly, the said GPA was executed in favour of P. Pandu and P. Sekhar Babu, but only single vendor is show that too in his personal capacity. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it also reveals that there is no ratification by the principal nor the said sale deed was confirmed by the
principal. As such, the very sale deed of the respondent would clearly show
that no proper title has been passed in favour of respondent No. 1 from the lawful owners B. Ranga Reddy or his sons in respect of Plot No. 124 in
Survey Nos. 242 and 243. It is also pertinent to mention here that the GPA was executed in favour of P. Pandu in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.9-10gts, but nowhere it is not mentioned about the plot numbers and nowhere the respondent stated about the making of the plots in the said sale deed and the said sale deed also does not whisper abut the layout and allotment of the said plot number to the said land.
30.On perusal of the evidence of R.W-1 and documents filed by him it does not support the contention of the respondent that the respondent is the owner of the said land ie., Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos. 242 an 243. It is clearly evident from the record that the respondent does not possess valid title in respect of Plot No. 124. Even in respect of Plot No. 124 of Survey
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Nos. 242 and 243 so as to come to conclusion that they are in possession of the land by way of any valid title. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that they obtained sanction plan and also placed receipt to show that they have exercising their rights over the said property, but as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the same cannot pass any title or interest over the suit schedule property. Mere payment of the tax and obtaining of the sanction plan does not validate any title in respect of the property and even obtaining of house loan cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 is having valid title over the petition schedule property. As such, it is clearly evident from the evidence placed by the petitioner and on proper analysis of the evidence of both the parties, I hold that the petitioner has proved her title over the property ie., Plot No.
124 in Survey No. 276/1 and even the respondent No. 1 could not able to prove their title over Plot No. 124 is in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 which they claiming possession of the property. As such, I hold this point in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
31.Coming to the identity of the said property, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner claiming title over Plot No. 124 and that it is in
Survey No. 276/1 of Ramachandrapuram Village and the respondent No. 1 is also claiming the same plot contenting that it fell within Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and both the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are claiming the said plot No. 124 situated in their respective survey numbers and it clearly shows and as discussed above the boundaries as per the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are not tallying with each other with their respective sale deeds.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
32.On proper analysis of the averments made by both the parties and the rival contentions, it can be culled out from the averments of both the parties that there is dispute regarding identity of the property and that as per the petitioner, the petitioner is claiming title over Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos.
276/1 through separate vendor and the respondent No. 1 is claiming title over
Plot No. 124 in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 through different vendor. In order to resolve the dispute that the said plot falls under which survey number, as the present petition is filed under AP Land Grabbing Act, as per the procedure laid down, MRO report was called for, who has submitted a report initially on 16-06-2009 that the Mandal Surveyor has prepared Tonch Map which is enclosed along with the extract of pahani for the year 2005-06 of
Malkajgiri Village in respect of Survey Nos. 276/1 and as it is submitted by way of report that the schedule land in LGOP No. 354 of 200 bearing Survey
Nos. 276/1, Plot No. 124 extent 266 square yards situated at Malkajgiri
Village and Mandal has been inspected and enquired the schedule land by the
Mandal Surveyor of Malkajgiri Mandal and the Mandal Surveyor has conducted and demarcated Survey Nos 276/1 with the help of village map and the total extent is Ac.5-35gts in which railway line is existing nad remaining area is vacant, but the suit schedule land Plot No. 124 to an extent of 266 square yards is not identified due to non availability of location sketch or layout plan.
33.Subsequently objections were also filed by the counsel for the petitioner on the said report and subsequently another survey report was also called for as per orders in IA No. 604 of 2018 who submitted a report on 26-08-2019 by the Mandal Surveyor, wherein it is reported that as per the orders of this court the Inspector of Survey instructed the Mandal Surveyor to conducted
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 survey in Survey No. 276/1 situated at Malkajgiri Mandal who proceeded to the spot to the schedule land bearing Survey No. 276/1 situated at Malkajgir
Village and Mandal together with the Court Commissioner and the petitioner of the Plot No. 124 and inspected the site at Survey No. 276 of Malkajgiri
Village and conducted the survey with reference to the records and it is found that the Plot bearing No. 124 is located in Survey No. 276 of
Malkajgiri Village during his survey on the spot one RCC roofed building G+1 is existing on Plot No. 124 falling in Survey No. 276 of Malkajgiri Village. He also submitted location sketch which clearly shows about the existence of the said plot abutting the boundary of Survey Nos. 242 and 276.
34.Further, as it is submitted that the boundaries of both the plot No. 124 which are claimed by both the parties varies with each other and further to support the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has relied upon Ex.A- 10 which is the certified copy of the layout plan, which shows that the said layout of land bearing survey Nos. 242 and 243 situated at Malkajgiri
Mandal, Ramachandrapuram belonging to B. Ranga Reddy S/o. B.
Ramachandra Reddy. As it is seen from the said plan that the said copy of the plan was obtained hiding another name under the said B. Ranga Reddy, which can be made out that it is the name of Sri Nainelal and one more layout is also on record in respect of the same layout, which shows that the said proposed layout of the land in respect of land Survey No. Nos. 242 and 243 and 276/1 situated at Malkajgiri of Ramakrishnapuram belonging to B.
Ranga Reddy S/o. B. Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri Nainilal S/o. Chotelal and it forms part of Ex.A-10 and the said Ex.A-10 reveals that the said land Plot
No. 124 is in Survey Nos. 276/1 and as per the layout the boundaries of Plot
No. 124 shows that on the northern side there is Plot No. 125, South by Plot
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 No. 123 and East 25 feet road and West Plot No. 121 and it is pertinent to mention here that as per the averments of the petition and it is the case of the petitioner that originally the said land belongs to Nainilal who was the real owner of the property and originally the said Nainilal had Ac.5-35 gts of land in Survey No. 276/1. The pahani which is submitted by the Tahsidlar would also clearly show that the said survey Nos. 276 consists of Ac.5-35gts and it was in the name of Nainilal S/o. Chotulal and it is also contended by
P.W-1 and P.W-2 that the portion of the land was acquired by the railway for laying a railway line and after the said acquisition, there remained the land to an extent of 2500 square yards which was sold by the said Nainilal to the Sanjivaiah Nagar Cooperating House Building Society Ltd. It is further contended that the said Nainilal obtained permission from competent authority from ULC and also from Bhagyanagar Land Development Authority,
Hyderabad for sale of the land and formed a layout along with the neighbouring land owner Ranga Reddy, who was the owner of the land in
Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and thus a uniform layout of all the three survey numbers 276/1, 242 and 243 belonging to Nainelal and Ranga Reddy was formed and the left over land after the acquisition of the land by the railway was sold to Sanjeevaiah Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. The said aspect of acquisition of the said land in Survey Nos. 276/1 is also reflected in Ex.A-10 layout plan, which shows that the portion of the land was acquired by the Railways and as per the layout, it clearly shows that the entire layout comprising of Plot Nos. 1 to 145 and as per the said layout are in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 and it clearly shows that a manipulation has been made in the said plan by hiding Survey No. 276/1 and it clearly evident to the naked eye that the copy of the layout has been obtained by covering
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Survey Nos. 276/1 and the name of the second owner by name Nainelal with pasting the papers on the same. Which clearly shows that the said layout is manipulated. The contention of the petitioner is supported by the layout showing that part of the land is in Survey No. 276/1 which was acquired by the Railways, which is clearly mentioned in the said layout.
35.Even if we go as per the layout which is submitted herein, only the name of B. Ranga Reddy is shown in respect of Survey Nos. 242 and 243, but it is not the case of the respondent that the part of land in Survey Nos.
242 ad 243 was acquired by the railways. But it is the specific case of the petitioner that the part of the land in Survey Nos. 276/1 was acquired by the railways, which is also established from the said layout. On one foot, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the entire land in
Survey No. 276/1 was acquired by the railway and there is no land available to sale in the said survey number, whereas, the layout clearly speaks contrary to the contention of the respondent No. 1.
36.To substantiate that the said plot fall within Survey No. 276, the learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested to R.W-1 that only the plot
No. 124 is surrounded by Plot Nos. 123, 125, 120 and 121 and part of the land in Survey No. 276/1 and he also further elicited from R.W-1 that the main door of the house of the respondent No. 1 was facing towards north and Plot No. 123 is located on the west of their plot No. 124 and 125 is located on the east of their plot and it is also also elicited from R.W-1 that one Colnel Lawrence filed OS No. 1362 of 192 in respect of Plot No. 137 in
Survey No. 276/1 against them and got the said decree under Ex.A-3 and further elicited that so also, one Sindu R. Kulkarni and Saraswathi have got
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 their houses away from three houses from Plot No. 124 but not his immediate neighbours of western side and the sale deed in favour of Shoba Thantri is pertaining to Plot No. 123/B, but he do not know in which survey number it is located. It is further elicited that there is a reference of Survey No. 276/1 in the sale deed in favour of Shoba Thantri. Similarly, it is elicited that the certified copy of the sale deed in the name of Sindhu R. Kulkarni bears
Survey No. 276/1 against the Plot No. 121/A which is marked as Ex.A-25 and it is substantiated that the said plots 120, 123, 124, 125, 126 and 121 which are in Survey No. 276/1. It is pertinent to mention that in the entire layout there are no two plots having same Plot No. as 124.
37.It is also suggested in the cross-examination of R.W-1 that the respondent has conveniently obtained Ex.A-10 by taking xerox copy by closing the name of Nainelal and Survey No. 276/1 and the evidence of R.W-1 and
Ex.A-10 clearly shows that with an intention to suppress the fact that the said land is common layout in between Ranga Reddy and Nainelal in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 242, 243 and 276/1, has hided the name of Nainelal and Survey No. 276/1 which is clearly evident to the naked eye.
38.It is clearly evident from the reports of the MRO and the evidence of
P.Ws-1 and 2 and the admission of R.W-1 clinchingly establishes that Plot
No. 124 falls within Survey No. 276/1 and not in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 as contended by the respondents and the layout under Ex.A-10 would also clearly exhibit the boundaries which are tallying with that of the sale deed of
P.W-1 under Ex.A-1.
39.To be more specific in the said aspect, the law being settled that whenever there is a dispute as to the identity of the plot on the land, the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 boundaries of the land has to be taken into consideration and the boundaries would prevail upon. In the present case, as the boundaries under Ex.A-10 layout is not in dispute and not denied and even surveyors report also reveals the boundary, the same is very much tallying with the sale deed of the petitioner under Ex.A-1 . But the sale deed of the respondent No. 1 does not tally with the sale deed and boundaries with the layout, as such, I hold that the evidence of the petitioner specifically made out and it is proved that by the petitioner that the location and identity of the property that the said plot falls within Survey No. 276/1.
40.Now coming to the aspect whether the respondent No. 1 has grabbed the property, admittedly as on the date of filing of the petition, the petitioner is not in possession of the petition schedule property and admittedly the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the said petition schedule property. As per the contention of P.W-1, P.,W-1 has contended that the petitioner has filed suit in OS No.332 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif,
Hyderabad East and North, RR District which is Principal Junior Civil Judge,
East and North seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property as the respondent No. 1 by fabricating the documents and in collusion with other respondents has made an attempt to grab the petition schedule property and also filed IA No. 433 of 1992 seeking temporary injunction where interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering with the petition schedule property. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of interim injunction orders, the respondent No. 1 highhandedly grabbed the property and made construction over the said plot. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed for default as
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 the petitioner could not file restoration petition, as such the respondent along with the other respondents encroached the plot and built a house. As the petitioner has lost the possession of the property in question as the earlier counsel has dodged the matter because of his personal inconvenience and since the said suit was only for injunction, no useful purpose will be served as the petitioner lost her possession over the suit property, as such, the petitioner abandoned the said proceedings and filed the present petition as the respondent grabbed the property under the false documents with the assistance of the other respondents, knowing full well the the said plot falls within Survey No. 276/1 and by creating false documents basing on the false deed which is obtained from the GPA holder by name P. Pandu.
41.It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that he is the bona fide purchaser of the property. Though it is the contention of the respondent No.
1 that he purchased the said property from P. Pandu, but nowhere it is contended that he has purchased the property bona fidely. It is also an admitted fact that after taking possession of the said property, the respondent
No. 1 has made construction over the petition schedule property after obtaining permission for construction of the house and constructed building over the petition schedule property. Though it is contended that the respondent No. 1 is in lawful possession of the same and it is contended that respondent No. 1 has availed loan from LIC and constructed a house over the schedule property. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has grabbed the property by using influence as he is a police official with the active connivance of P. Pandu and created illegal documents and it is also further contended that the respondent No. 1 illegal obtained the document from P. Pandu posing as if the said Pandu is a
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 original owner, but not in the capacity of the GPA by mentioning the suit plot is in Survey Nos. 242 and 243.
42.When it clearly evident that the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the property as contended by the petitioner, to come to conclusion whether the said possession is illegal possession or lawful possession, it is clearly evident from the record that the layout would clearly show that a common layout was made and as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 knowing full well that the said Pandu who is not the owner of the said property, has purchased the property from P. Pandu though he being a owner of the said property, but only one of the attorney holder as per the GPA which is executed by B. Ranga Reddy and other in favour of Pandu and Sekhar and it is also settled law that no person can pass better title, that which he holds.
43.In the present case, admittedly the said P. Pandu does not hold any right or title or interest over the said property individually and it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he obtained loan from LIC and that he also cleared the said loan and also obtained a municipal sanction plan.
But the respondent No. 1 has not placed any document to show that he has obtained the loan by submitting the sanction plan and all the link documents.
As it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere obtaining the loan and sanction of the loan does not prove the title of the respondent No. 1 over the petition schedule property. Moreover, when the petitioner has filed the suit before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, claiming injunction and also obtained interim injunction, it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit and non
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 extension of the injunction order, highhandedly grabbed the property of the petitioner. To come to conclusion that the possession of the respondent No. 1 is illegal over the property and unlawful, it can be culled out from the record that there is no proper title alleged to have been passed under Ex.B-1 and it is not a title in the eye of law.
44.It is not the case of the respondent NO. 1 he purchased the said property from said P. Pandu bonafidely and the conduct of the respondent prior to the purchase and after the purchase and on perusal of the documentary evidence of the respondent No. 1 and manipulation of the layout as discussed earlier, would clearly show that the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the said P. Pandu knowing fully well that the said Plot No.
124 is in Survey No. 276/1 has got the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity. It is also evident from the report of the MRO that the said property which is inspected by the Mandal Surveyor which comprises of G+1 building falls within Survey No. 276/1 and it shows that the respondent No. 1 after grabbing the suit plot has constructed the said building which is clearly established by the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 after grabbing the plot has made the said construction.
As the very possession of the respondent No. 1 is admitted and as the respondent No. 1 failed to prove his title under lawful sale deed, the said possession of the respondent No. 1 over the petition schedule property under the guise that it is in Survey Nos. 242 and 243 is an unlawful possession and as the petitioner has proved her title over the said property, as such, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the respondents have grabbed property of the petitioner and that they have to be declared as land grabbers.
As such, the petitioner is entitled for the possession of the suit plot from the
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 respondents. Accordingly, these points are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 1.
45.Point No.3:
In the result, petition is allowed with costs by declaring the petitioner as absolute owner of the petition schedule property ie., land bearing Plot No.
124, H. N. 31-55/8/1, in Survey No. 276/1 admeasuring 266 square yards situated at Bank Colony, Near Railway Over Bridge, Ramakrishnapuram,
Malkajgiri Mandal Municipality, RR District and the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 are hereby declared as land grabbers of the petition schedule property (petition against R3, R6, R9 was dismissed and petition against R8 was not pressed).
The respondent No. 1 (or anybody claiming through or under respondent No. 1 or any other respondents) is hereby directed to deliver the vacant peaceful physical possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to make an application seeking execution of this order as provided under law for eviction of the respondent No. 1 from the petition schedule property by demolishing or removing any constructions made therein.
Further, the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards damages for use and occupation of the land from 08-04-1994 to 01-12-1999 and also directed to pay damages @
Rs.1000/- per month from 01-12-1999 till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, typed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court, this the 27th day of July, 2020.
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness Examined On behalf of Petitioner On behalf of Respondents P.W-1 : C.S. Kanakamannamma R.W-1: G. Rama Rao P.W-2 : K.S.Nair
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of Petitioner: Ex.A1: Registered Sale deed document bearing No. 1209/1982, dt: 17-03-1982 Ex.A2: Copy of FIR in Cr.No.99/1989 against respondent No.1 of PS Neredmet Ex.A3:CC of Judgment and Decree in OS No. 1367/1992, dt: 05-03-1997 Ex.A4: CC of affidavit accompanying the petition bearing in IA No. 2751/1992 in OS No. 1367/1992 dt. 13-12-1992 Ex.A4A: CC of petition annexed to Ex.A4. Ex.A5: Original receipt of payment of requisite fee by the petitioner towards suit plot
Ex.A6: Letter dated 07-05-1992 issued by the Syndicate Bank, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. Ex.A7: CC of sale deed document No. 4556/1997, dt: 05-11-1997 Ex.A8: Certificate issued by the Office of MRO, Malkajgiri. Ex.A9: Affidavit sworn by Sri P. Pandu as the GPA holder of Harinath Reddy others Ex.A10: Copy of Layout plan Ex.A11: Counter affidavit filed by respondent as respondent in IA No. 3907/1994 in OS No. 332/1992 Ex.A12: CC of common order dated 23-02-1998 passed by the PJCJ, Hyderabad East & North. Ex.A13: Decree passed in IA No. 94/1998 in OS No. 48/1998 Ex.A14: CC of order in IA No. 433/1992 in OS NO. 332/1992 Ex.A15: Copy of legal notice issued by the counsel for petitioner to the respondent, along with certificate of posting. Ex.A16: CC of sale deed executed by Sanjeevaiayh Co-Op House Building Society Limited. Ex.A17: CC of sale deed document No. 960/1986 executed by Harinath Reddy Ex.A18: Sale Deed document No. 965/1982, dt: 27-02-1982 Ex.A19: Sale Deed document No. 1038/1981, dt: 30-11-1981 Ex.A20: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A21: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A22: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A23: Encumbrance Certificate
On behalf of Respondents: Ex.B1: Registered sale deed document No. 2601/1991, dt: 25-05-1991 Ex.B2: Registered GPA executed by B. Ranga Reddy and three others in faovur of P. Pandu and P. Sekhar Babu Ex.B3: Building permission dated 07-04-1992 Ex.B4:Sanction plan Ex.B5:Loan offer letter of LIC, dt. 27-04-1194 Ex.B6:Loan receipt issued by LIC
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Ex.B7:Payment of loan details Ex.B8:Pahani for the year 1978-1991 for Sy.Nos. 242, 243 & 276/1 Ex.B9: CC of orders in IA No. 743/1991 Ex.B10:CC of order in IA No. 26/1991 Ex.B11: CC of judgment in OS No. 360/1989 Ex.B12: CC of order in IA No. 3907/1994 in OS No. 332/1992 Ex.B13: CC of judgment in OS No. 332/1992
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
DECREE
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Present : Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao., I Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Monday, this the 27th day of July, 2020
LGOP No. 354 of 2000 Between: Smt. C.S.Kanakamaniamma, H/o. Sri K.S.Nair, Age: 49 Years R/o. B-155, Sainikpuri
Rangareddy District....Petitioner
And
1. G. Rama Rao S/o. G. Venkaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt Servant, R/o. H.No. 31-55/8/1, Bank Colony, Ramakrishnapuram, Near Railway Over Bridge, Malkajgiri, Municipality, R.R.District.
2. P. Pandu S/o. Sri P. Pentaiah, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-4-371/9/1, Krishnanagar, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.
3. P. Pentaiah S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged about: Major, R/o. H.No. 6-4-373/8, Krishnanagar, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.
4. P. Krishna S/o. Pentaiah, Aged: major, R/o. H.No. 26-35, Brindavan Colony, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad.
5. B. Premachandra Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-90, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
6. Vijayachandra Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-88, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
7. B. Harinath Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged: Major, R/o. 13-89, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
8. Yadagiri S/o. Narayana, Aged: Major, R/o. 5-90, Chintal, Kuttrettapur, Medchal.
9. Jayaprakash Reddy, S/o. Not known, Aged: Major, R/o. 1-10-170, Near BHEL, Bowanpally, Secunderabad.
10. P. Sekhar Babu S/o. P. Pentaiah, Aged: Major, R/o. 6-4-373/8, Krishna Nagar, Bholakpur,
Secunderabad....Respondents
Claim : This petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the petitioner as the owner of the land bearing H.No. 31-55/8/1 (Plot No. 124) in Sy.No. 276/1, admeasuring 266 Sq.yards, situated at Bank Colony near Railway over Bridge, Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, to declare the respondents are the land grabbers, to evict the respondent No.1 from the land grabbed by him, to direct the respondent No.1 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the land grabbed by him and to direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the land from 8-4-94 to 1-12-99 and also for future damages from 2-12-99 till the date of delivery of possession @ Rs.1000/- per month
Cause of Action:The Cause of Action arose on 01-12-1999 when the petitioner came to know about the grabbing of the petition schedule property by the respondents.
Court fee:The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.500/- under Rule-4 of APLG Act, 1982
OP filed on :31-12-1999
OP numbered on:10-04-2000
This LAOP is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of S M/s. D. Jawaharlal, Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri Y. Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and of R2, R4, R5, R7 and R10 set exparte and of claim against R3, R6 and R9 dismissed and the case against R8 was given up and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decrees as follows:
1. That the petition of the petitioner is allowed by declaring the petitioner as absolute owner of the petition schedule property ie., land bearing Plot No. 124, H. N. 31-55/8/1, in Survey No. 276/1 admeasuring 266 square yards situated at Bank Colony, Near Railway Over Bridge,
Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Mandal Municipality, RR District
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
2.That the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 are hereby declared as land grabbers of the petition schedule property
3.That the respondent No. 1 (or anybody claiming through or under respondent No. 1 or any other respondents) is hereby directed to deliver the vacant peaceful physical possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to make an application seeking execution of this order as provided under law for eviction of the respondent No. 1 from the petition schedule property by demolishing or removing any constructions made therein.
4.That the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards damages for use and occupation of the land from 08-04-1994 to 01-12-1999 and also directed to pay damages @
Rs.1000/- per month from 01-12-1999 till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner.
5.That the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.502/- towards costs of the petition.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 27th day of July, 2020
I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Costs of the Petition
Petitioner Respondent
1. Stamp on plaint 500/---
2. Stamp on Power 2/-2/-
3. Stamp on Exhibits ----
4. Pleader Fee/Jr. Fee. FC & MC not filed
5. Commissioner Fee ----
6. Service of process -- --
7. Preparation of process -- --
8. Publication Charges ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL : 502/- 2/-
Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 27th day of July, 2020
I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
LGOP No. 354 of 2000
Petition Schedule Property
All that house property bearing H. No. 31-55/8/1 at Plot No. 124, in
Survey No.276/1, admeasuring 266 square yards, situated at Bank Colony,
Near Railway Over Bridge, Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District and bounded by:
North:Plot No. 125 South:Plot No. 123 East:25 feet wide road West:Plot No. 121
I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
NOTE: “The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three yearsfrom this date.”