1 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
Dated this the 22 nd day of April, 2024
Present : Smt. S.SARITA X Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad
LGOP.No.763 of 2017
Between : Dr. Zaffar Shah Nawaz S/o M. Mazharulla Khan, Age: 50Yrs, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.No. 10-3-67/3/1/C, New Street, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. …. Applicant
AND
1. Dr. Arun, S/o. Not known Age 49 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 174 / A / A, MLA colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
2. Mahender Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Not known Age 47 yrs, R/o. 174 / A / A MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. Dr. Alluri Suryanarayana S/o Rama Rao Aged 69 yrs, Occ: Doctor,R/o. Plot No. 213, Venkateshwara Coop. House Building Society For AP Legislators, Hyd, Road No.12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. …Respondents
This petition coming before me on this 8 th day of August, 2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M Eswara Prasad, counsel for petitioner, Sri M Papa Reddy, Counsel for Respondent.No.1, Sri E.S. Kumar, Counsel for Respondent.No.3, and Respondent.No.2 was set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
2 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
:: O R D E R ::
1. This case is transferred from the special court under GO MS No. 113, Revenue (Land
Matters) department date: 01-06-2016 of Govt of Telangana Under which AP Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act was repeated. After making over the case to this court through Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and re numbered as
LGOP No. 763/2017 and having received the case records, this court proceeded with further proceedings.
2. That the contention of applicant is that, he is absolute owner and possessor of the land in Plot No. 174 A/B, admeasuring 600 Sq. yards or 500 Sq. meters which is more fully described in the schedule annexed, situated in survey no. 102/1 of
Hakeempet village within the approved lay out of Sri Venkateshwarea co-operative
House Building Society for A.P. Legislators Itd. Within the limits of Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad.
3. It is further contended that, the said plot was purchased by the applicant’s vendor Sri.
M. Balakrishnamma, Ex-M.L.C. R/o H. no. 1-1-336/124, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad from its owner Sri. Venkateshwara Co-op House Building Society for A.P.
Legislators Ltd. Regd. No. TAB 185 under a Regd. Sale deed vide document no.
2671 of 1983, Book 1 Volume 744, Page 85 to 92 Dt. 21.9.1983 Regd. at the office of
Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, A.P. and the said society was competent to alienate and transfer the above plot to the Vendor of the applicant.
4. That the Vendor of the applicant assured the applicant that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the said plot bearing No. 174 A/B described in the schedule and that there is no legal impediment of any kind for alienation of the said land.
3 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
5. It is further contended that, the Vendor of the applicant offered to alienate and dispose of the property for a total sale-consideration Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) and the applicant agreed to purchase the said plot for the above sale consideration. In pursuance of the said agreement the applicant (Purchaser) paid the entire sale consideration to the vendor, which he acknowledged.
6. It is further contended that, that the neighbors Respondents No. 1 and 2 of plot encroached on scheduled land and grabbed the portion of 600 Sq. yards of open land of the Applicant owner to the extent of 180 Sq. yards Illegally. When applicant was abroad for studies in U.S.A. & U.K. and when the Applicant returned from U.K. and
U.S.A. in the end of year 2004 after his specialization, he applied for NOC to construct house on his plot. He submitted all the required registered documents in the office of the Land Revenue Department at Shaikpet Mandal for NOC. When the department persons came to survey the plot on 13 December, 2005 they pointed out to the applicant that the plot is falling short in breadth compared to the registered sale deed and map annexed. The petitioner was shocked. He then requested them to let him know through survey and measurement, how much land in his plot is grabbed which they did. (Original survey map depicting the area grabbed) is enclosed herewith. As per their official survey, the plot of the applicant was short of 4.8 meters or 5.24 yards. In the frontage, i.e., breadth. The width of the plot as per registration and map annexed should be 16 meters or 17.49 yards, whereas at present, it is only 11.2 meters or 12.248 yards. A total area of around 180 Sq. yards or 150 Sq. metres is grabbed illegally and unlawfully, by the owner of the plot no. 174/A/A (i.e.,
Respondent No.1) along with the Respondent no. 2 herein which is shown 4 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
specifically and clearly in the land survey documents, by the surveyor of the Shaikpet
Mandal. The Surveyor has as per existing rules measured the frontage of the immediate neighbors on either sides. The area grabbed is the land of the petitioner herein, which is still an open plot. Both the Respondents have conjointly grabbed the land of the Petitioner as depicted in original survey map enclosed.
7. It is further stated that, Regional Dy. Director Survey & Land records Narayanaguda,
Hyderabad visited and filed his report taking into consideration the neighboring plots and since the surveyor filed his report and observed excess extent in the plot No. 213 belonging to third respondent who has been impleaded as per the orders of this Court.
8. Respondent No. 1 filed his counter denying the contents of the application filed by applicant and further stated that, he does not admit any of the material averments or adverse allegations made by petitioner in the above petition.
9. It is further contented that, in so far as the address of R 1 given in the OP is concerned, it is totally incorrect. To the knowledge of petitioner, R1 was residing in
Sharjah and working in Dubai and he does not reside here at all. Petitioners also knows that it is R2 who is in occupation of the entire house. In fact R 2 was in occupation of the entire house even when R1 purchased the property from the predecessor in title in the year 2004 and following the purchase of the property the tenant ie., R2 was attorney to R1 by the previous landlord as his tenant. Such being the case any attempt on the part of petitioner to show address of R1 as local address is mischievous and a deliberate attempt to obtain an ex-parte order against R1 which he successfully did before R1 approached this Court and got it set aside. It is further 5 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
incorrect to say that R1 is Doctor as shown in the cause title to the application. R1 is an Engineer by qualification and this fact is known to petitioner.
10.Further the claim of petitioner that R1 is a land grabber and that has encroached on 180 sq. yards of petitioner's property is absolutely false and therefore denied. R1 does not know if the in the petition as shown is Rs. 21,60,000/-, and the correct market value of the property petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The rough sketch that has been filed along with the petition does not reflect the correct ground realities and it has been prepared only to support petitioner’s case. Since R 1 is not land grabber as claimed by petitioner, the question of his being evicted from the suit schedule property does not arise nor he is liable to pay any compensation much less
Rs. 20,000/- p.m. as claimed by petitioner. Similarly, the claim of petitioner that R 1 must be punished U/s 3 and 4 of LG Act of 1982 would not arise since R 1 is not a land grabber within the meaning of the said act. In any case the claim for compensation at Rs. 20,000/- p.m. is without any basis and is exorbitant and fanciful.
11.It is further stated that, the contents of para 1 of the concise statement of the petition are substantially correct and therefore not denied. While it is not denied that as per the recitals in the sale deed under which petitioner is reported to have purchased plot
NO. 174/A/B, admeasures 600 sq. yards or 500 sq. mtrs... It is denied that he is in occupation and possession of 600 sq. yards of land right from the date of his purchase, if his version about encroachment on his land is to be believed, for buildings with compound wall existed on either side of petitioners plot, much prior to his purchase. In fact there is a dispute with regard to the area of the land ie., being 6 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
held by petitioner, prior to the RDO handing over to petitioner 180 sq.yards of land from R 1's plot.
12.The contention of petitioner that he was delivered possession of 600 sq. yrds of land or 500 sq. mtrs., of land by his predecessor in title as claimed by him in para 3 cannot be correct since there was a building with compound wall already in existence on either side of the open plot reported to have been purchased by petitioner. On the southern side of petitioner's plot there was a house in existence since 1988, since the sale deed bearing Doct. No. 557/1988, dated 21 - 3 - 1988 , clearly shows that a house constructed on 600 sq. yrds of land was sold by the original allottee Mr. V.
Subramanyam Naidu, to one Smt. B. Brunda. Thereafter, Smt. B. Brunda, and other family members viz., Mr. B. Gopala Krishna Reddy (her husband), Mr. Sudhir Reddy (Son) and Mrs. B. Padma (Daughter) treated the said property as a joint family property along with other properties. Subsequently, under a registered partition deed vide Doct. No. 2681/1996, entered into between the family members of Smt. B.
Brunda, the said plot No. 174/A/A, along with the building was allotted to Smt. B.
Padma, who in turn sold the same to R 1, under registered Sale deed dated 02-04- 2004, vide Doct. No. 1260/2004 In other words, by the date of the reported purchase of plot No. 174/A/B by petitioner, there already existed a building with compound wall on its southern side. Before selling the land with the building, by Mr. V.
Subramanyam Naidu, to Smt. B.Brunda, he had sought permission from MCH for construction of the house with a compound wall and the same was granted vide permit NO. 103/89 dated 31-10-1985 under file No. 583/Open/ 8/85 . Subsequently,
Mr. V. Subramanyam Naidu, constructed a house with compound wall and this house 7 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
was accorded municipal NO. 8-2-293/82 / L / 174 / A - A Similarly by, the time petitioner purchased the open plot in the year 1995, existed a building with a compound wall constructed on Plot No. 213/A which plot is situated on the Northern side of petitioners 213 / A plot. One Mr. P. Ammi Raju, after his purchase of open plot had constructed a house thereon and the said house was given municipal No. 8- 2-293/82/2/213/A, vide permit No. 125/55/86. He in turn sold this 200 house with plot admeasuring 600 sq. yards to one Dr. Alluri Suryanarayana, under registered sale deed Doct. No. 312/1988, dated 22-02-1988. In other words long before the purchase of the open plot admeasuring 600 sq. yrds by petitioner there existed a building with a compound wall on the plot situated on the northern side of petitioners plot. In other words, there was a house on either side of the open plot when petitioner purchased the open plot in the year 1995. In other words, when compound walls on either side of petitioner's plot were in existence, even by the time petitioner purchased the open plot reported to be admeasuring 600 sq. yrds., though the sale deed might have reflected that the area of open plot is 600 sq. yrds, it could not have been 600 sq.
yards, if petitioners version about encroachment by this respondent on his land is to be believed. Such being the case why petitioner did not get his own plot measured at the time of his purchase from the original allottee, or why the petitioner did not take any steps for physical verification of the exact area in his occupation till 13-12-2005 when he is reported to have discovered that there is an encroachment over his land remains an enigma. It is too late in the day for petitioner to complain that this R 1 has grabbed his plot to an extent of 180 sq. yards. In fact the very report of the MRO
dated 20-11-2006 which is sent by the MRO directly to this Hon'ble Forum U/s 6 (2)
8 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
and (3) of LG Act would falsify the stand taken by petitioner. This MRO's report had clearly disclosed that if at all there is any encroachment over plot No. 174/A/B, it is from northern side as well as southern side. In fact, as per the sketch filed by MRO and sent to this Hon'ble Forum, it is reported that this R 1 has encroached only to an extent of 37.5 sq. mtrs., while the northern neighbour holding plot No. 213/A is reported to have encroached by 29.6 sq. mtrs., over plot NO. 174 / A / B . While the report of the MRO, based on which this OP is filed, states that only this respondent has encroached 180 sq. yards or 150 sq.mtrs., of land in Plot No. 174/A/B, the report of the MRO sent to this Hon'ble Court directly mentions that only 37.5 sq. mtrs., is encroached by this respondent. It is also pertinent to note that even if the two figures of alleged encroachment on plot NO. 174/A/B are added up (ie .,37.5-29.6 sq. mtrs) it would work out only to 61.7 sq. mtrs., and not 150 sq mtrs., as claimed in the report of the MRO, relied upon by petitioner. Therefore, it is manifest that the report of the MRO relied upon by the petitioner is without any basis. Therefore, all allegations to the contrary are hereby denied as false, misleading and mischievous.
Even such a report of MRO cannot be held to be correct since no notice of proposed measurements or enquiry was given either to this respondent or to his tenant.
Admittedly, no body was present at the time of alleged inspection of the MRO from this respondents side. Such being the case it cannot be said that the report of the
MRO dated 20-11-2006 and the report of the MRO, based on which the above case is filed are correct. Unless there is a fresh survey done and carried out in the presence of both the parties, any report which is done unilaterally cannot be accepted as correct. It is pertinent to note that the report of the MRO and the sketch annexed 9 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
thereto based on which petitioner filed the present complaint is totally different from the report and the sketch dated 20-11-2006 sent directly by the MRO to this Hon'ble
Forum. Both cannot be correct and both are mutually contradictory. It is curious that both the reports and sketches which have emanated from the same MROs office,
Shaikpet Mandal, give different versions of the alleged encroachment.
13.It is further stated that, the contents of para 4 of the concise statement are within exclusive knowledge of petitioner and therefore this respondent is not in a position to admit or deny the same. However, petitioner is put to strict proof of the said allegations. As stated earlier, this respondent is not aware as to what transpired between petitioner and MRO office and when they reportedly visited the suit schedule property and took measurements of the EP 200 Si same and basing on what documents or records the MRO is reported to have arrived at a conclusion that there is an encroachment from either side. Similarly, this respondent is not in a position to say whether the officials of Survey Dept., reported that the plot of petitioner was short of 4.8 mtrs or 5.24 yards in the frontage I.e., breadth, as claimed in the said para and not as per the recitals in the sale deed and the sketch annexed to it under which petitioner is reported to have purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.
174/A/B. It is denied that the frontage at present is only 11.2 mtrs or 12.2 yards and that 180 sq. yards or 150 sq. mtrs., (ie., 4.80 mtrs. X 31.25 mtrs) is grabbed illegally by this respondent along with R 2 herein and that they are shown clearly and specifically in the land survey documents submitted by the surveyor of Shaikpet
Mandal. This respondent is not aware that the surveyor measured the frontage of the immediate neighbors on either side and furnished his report as per the existing rules.
10 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
It is emphatically denied that R 1 and R 2 have jointly grabbed the land of petitioner as depicted in the original survey map filed along with the OP. Therefore all allegations to the contrary are hereby denied as false and mischievous and are therefore denied.
14.It is further contented that, the contents of para 5 of the concise statement with regard to cause of action is false and untenable and therefore denied. There is no cause of action for filing of the above OP under the provisions of LG Act. Even according to petitioner, there is only a boundary dispute between the parties in respect of their own plots in that area and by no stretch of imagination it could be said that there is a land grabbing by either this R 1 or by his tenant. The dispute entirely and precisely relate to the measurements of the land. As per the recitals it only relates to the disputes of boundaries of respective plot owners. This Hon'ble Court rightly observed while allowing the petition filed by this respondent for setting aside the ex-parte orders that the nature of the dispute relates to measurements of the plots in the area and that "dispute if any, between petitioner and respondent in the main case is relating to the boundary between the two plots. This could be resolved by appointment of a surveyor as Commissioner".
15.It is further contented that, R1 submits that as decided by this Hon'ble Court he is not only prepared to cooperate in the early disposal of the case but is also willing for a surveyor being appointed for the limited purpose of verifying the topographical dimensions and the areas of the plot Nos. 213/A, 174/A/B, 174/A/A and 174/A, which are adjacent to each other based on the title deeds furnished by R 1 pertaining to those plots. Unless these plots together with buildings are measured, it may not be 11 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
possible to arrive at just conclusion as to whether the alleged encroachment has taken place. Merely measuring plot Nos. 174/A/A and 174/A/B, would not meet the requirements, because there could be encroachment from the other end also as reported by MRO in his report dated 20-11-2006. In this connection, separate application is being filed by this respondent before this Hon'ble Court for appointing a surveyor for the purpose mentioned in the said application.
16.The facts of the case on the other hand are as follows:
17.Sri Venkateshwara Co-Op. House Building Society, had prepared a layout plan and allotted plots to its members who have paid for the said plots for the purpose of building houses and executed sale deeds in favour in its allottees and registered the same in the office of SRO, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The stretch of plots in the area adjacent to the plots of petitioner and respondent are Plot Nos. 213/A, 174/A/B, 174/A/A and 174/A.
18.The Details of title and the areas in occupation of above referred plot owners at Sri
Venkateshwara Co-op House Building Society, Road No. 12, M.L.A. Colony,
Banjara Hills, as per the recitals in the title deeds are as follows:
19.Details about Plot No. 213/A
1. Sri Venkateswara Co-op House building society has sold an area of 600 sq. yards of open plot to Sri. P. Ammiraju, vide Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct. No. 1094 of 1983 of Sub-Registrar, Banjara hills.
2. Sri. P. Ammi Raju in turn constructed a house thereon and the said house was given Municipal No. 8-2-293/82/2/213- A, vide permit no. 125/55/86.
12 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
3. Sri. P. Ammi Raju sold this House constructed on a plot of 600 sq. yds to Dr.
Alluri Suryanarayana, vide a Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct. No. 312 of 1988.
The said Dr. Alluri Suryanarayana is in possession of this property till date.
20.Details about Plot No. 174/A/B.
1. Sri Venkateswara co-op House Building society has sold an area of 600 sq.yds of open plot to Sri. M. Bala Krishnamma, Vide Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct No.
2671 of 1983.
2. Sri. M. Bala Krishnamma, in turn sold this open plot of 600 sq. yds to one Dr.
Zafar Shah Nawaz vide a Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct. No. 1421 of 1995. This property still remains an open plot.
21.Details about Plot No. 174/A/A
1. Sri Venkateswara co-op House Building society has sold an area of 600 sq.yds of open plot to Sri. V. Subramanyam Naidu, vide Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct No.
2644 of 1983. Sri. V. Subramanyam Naidu applied to MCH for sanction to construct a house with compound wall and was accorded sanction vide permit no.
103/89 dtd. 31-10-1985 in file no. 583/open/ 8/85 . This house was accorded
Municipal No. 8 - 2 - 293/82 / L / 174 / A - A
2. Sri. V. Subramanyam Naidu sold this property i.e., house constructed on a plot of 600 sq. yds to Smt. Bojjala Brunda, under a Regd. sale deed bearing Doct No.
557 of 1988.
3. Smt. Bojjala Brunda, and her other family members namely, Sri. B. Gopala
Krishna Reddy (Husband), Mr. Sudheer Reddy (son) and Miss. B. Padma 13 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
(Daughter), treated this property as Joint Family property along with their other properties.
4. The family members of Smt. Bojjala Brunda, got executed a partition deed registered as Doct no. 2687/96 and for division of properties and as per the said document, this property purchased in the name of Smt. Bojjala Brunda, was allotted to Ms. Padma, and since then, Ms. Padma has become the absolute owner of this property (ie. House on 600 sq.yds of land.)
5. Ms. Padma (Padma Rekha) in addition to this property has purchased an area of 110 sq.yds of open land from Mr. Gamago, the owner of the neighbouring plot i.e.
174/A, which is to the southern side of her house, vide regd. Sale deed bearing
Doct no. 1253 of 1997. This area of 110 sq. yds was sold out of the 600 sq.yds of land in plot no. 174/A, which belonged to Mr. Gamago. Thus in all Ms. Padma
Rekha was in possession of 710 sq.yd of land i.e., 600sq. yd + 110 sq.yds.
6. After purchase of these two properties Ms. Padma Rekha had joined the two properties and renovated the existing house constructed on plot 174/A /A into a two storied building admeasuring 5000 sq.ft, and applied for regularisation of the building and got sanction from MCH, in file no. 12683 / B * RS /110/ 98
7. Ms. Padma Rekha had agreed to sell her house constructed on 710 sq. yds of land to Mr. D. Arun. As per the above understanding Ms. Padma Rekha sold all that part of House on plot no. 174/A admeasuring 110 sq. yds and all that part of
House on plot of 174-A/A admeasuring 600 sq.yds, totally admeasuring 710 sq.yds, with a two storied building thereon admeasuring 5000 sq.ft and Municipal
No.8-2-293/82/L/174/A/A, in favour of Mr. D.Arun, under a 1260 of 2004.
14 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
8. It is further stated that, cos the western side of this property ie., behind the two plots 174/A & 174/A/A, there was an area of 400 sq.yd of SCRUTINand and Sri
Venkateswara co-op House Building society has made this into two plots of 200 sq.yds each and sold these two plots to Smt. Brunda after collecting Rs 90,000/- as sale consideration towards each plot and executed two sale deeds registered as doct. No. 544 of 1997 & 545 of 1997.
9. Smt. B.Brunda has, from out of the 200 sq. yards of lands purchased under Doct.
No. 545/1997, agreed to sell an area of 20 sq.yd, of land, to Mr. D. Arun. Further, she also agreed to sell from out of the 200 sq.yd of land purchased under Doct no.
544/1996, an area of 70 sq.yds of land to Mr.D. Arun. As per the above understanding Smt. B.Brunda sold to Mr. D.Arun under Regd. Sale Deed bearing
Doct. No. 1261 of 2004, an area aggregating to 90 sq.yds from out of the 400 sq.yds owned by her.
10.Thus Mr. D.Arun became the absolute owner and possessor of all that House presently on 800 sq. yds of land (ie., 710 sq.yds from Ms. Padma Rekha and 90 sq. yds from Smt. B. Brunda.) 22.Details about Plot No. 174/A
1. Sri Venkateswara co-op Houes Building society has sold an open Plot of Land admeasuring 600 sq.yds to Mr. Gomago, vide Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct No.
1887 of 1983.
2. From out of this 600 sq. yds of land Mr. Gomago Sold 110 sq. yds of land to one
Ms. Padma Rekha vide a Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct. No. 1253 of 1997.
15 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
3. Mr. Gomago, out of the remaining 490 sq.yds of land sold an area of 430 sq. yds of land to Mr.T. Narasimha Reddy vide a Regd, Sale Deed bearing Doct. No.
3211 of 1995.
4. Mr. Gomago, sold an area of 42 sq. yds of land from out of the balance area remaining with him, on the western side of plot No. 174/A, vide a Regd, Sale
Deed bearing Doct. No. 1425 of 1996 in favour of Mr. T. Narasimha Reddy.
5. Mr.T. Narasimha Reddy in turn sold an area admeasuring 472 sq. yds (430 sq. yds + 42 sq. Yds) in favour of Mr. S. Sambasiva Rao vide Regd, Sale Deed bearing
Doct. No. 2457 of 2001.
6. Towards the western side of plot of 174/A, there existed open land admeasuring 200 sq. yds. This land was abutting plot no. 174/A. Sri Venkateswara co-op
House Building society had sold this Plot of 200 sq.yds in favour of Smt.
B.Brunda vide Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doct No. 2407 of 1996. As there were certain typographical errors in the Doct No. 2407 of 1996, a Rectification deed was executed vide Doct No. 1999 of 1999.
7. Smt. B. Brunda had constructed a house thereon and the said house was accorded
Municipal No. 8-2- 293/82/L/174/A/A/1. Smt. B. Brunda sold a portion of this
House admeasuring 54 sq. yds, in favour of Mr. S. Sambasiva Rao, vide Regd.
Sale Deed bearing Doct No. 1976 of 2005.
8. Thus Mr. S. Sambasiva Rao is the absolute owner and possessor of all that House on plot No. 174/A, admeasuring 526 sq. yds (ie. 472 sq. yds purchased from T.
Narasimha Reddy + 54 sq. yds purchased from Mr.B. Brunda ).
16 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
23.This Respondent in the month of August, 2007, had approached the office of Sri
Venkateshwara Co-Op. House Building Society, to seek necessary information and data regarding his neighbouring plot owners and the areas sold to them. In the process Sri Venkateshwara Co-Op. House Building Society, had furnished to this respondent the names of its members to whom the above referred plots were allotted together with details of registered document numbers along with certified copy of the the layout plan society. Basing on this information this respondent A had gathered all information with regard to the title of the above referred plots from the SROs Office,
Banjara Hills, and obtained certified copies of the registered sale deeds together with link documents. This respondent is filing herewith all the relevant documents obtained from the society and SROs office to put the record straight.
24.This respondent submits that unless these documents are taken into consideration at the time of making a fresh survey by the surveyor, the actual facts would not come to light.
25.On the other hand, from a very reading of the report which much reliance is placed by Strength petitioner and also on the of the MROs report and sketch filed on 20-11- 2006, it is manifest that the claim of petitioner that this respondent has encroached to an extent of 180 sq. yards of land over Plot No. 174/A/B is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. In fact as per the recitals in the report filed before this Hon'ble Court on 20-11- 2006, it is manifest that the total extent of land reported to have been encroached on Plot No. 174/A/B, is only 61.7 sq. mtrs., out of which this respondent is reported to have encroached only to an extent of 37.5 sq. mtrs,. On what basis petitioner could allege that land to an extent of 180 sq. yards is encroached by this 17 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
respondent on Plot No. 174/A/B is not known. Obviously, petitioner willfully and wantonly avoided mentioning the alleged encroachment on the northern side of his plot to an extent of 29.5 sq. mtrs., and has concentrated on the alleged encroachment to an extent of 37.5 sq. mtrs., by this respondent. By misrepresenting facts petitioner not only obtained ex-parte orders against this respondent but also encroached upon 180 sq. yards of open land of this respondent and under the guise of the said ex-parte orders he had constructed illegally a compound wall with the help of revenue officials thereby encroaching into this respondents land to an extent of 180 sq. yards.
In other words, it now transpires that petitioner himself is a land grabber and not this respondent. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that the report of the
MRO dated 20-11-2006 was anterior to the ex-parte decree passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Feb. 2007. While executing the decree petitioner deliberately and willingly avoided mentioning about the report of the MRO dated 20-11-2006, and conveniently occupied 180 sq. yards of land of this respondent. In fact, had the petitioner brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court about the report of the MRO received by this
Hon'ble Court on 20-11-2006, probably this Hon'ble Court would not have granted
petitioner a decree for 180 sq. yards of land in this respondents property. This has been done more by design than by accident. This betrays the malafides and diabolical designs of petitioner.
26.For the foregoing reasons it is submitted that the above OP filed under the provisions of LG Act and claiming that this respondent be declared as land grabber is wholly untenable both on facts and in law is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs.
18 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
27.Respondent No. 1 filed additional counter contending that, the present application has been filed in collusion with respondent no.3 and both of them in turn have been taking convenient pleas convenient to both of them while alleging alleged encroachment on the part of this respondent. It is pertinent to note that in fact it is respondent no.3 who has encroached upon a large extent of property belonging to the applicant. Though the said fact had become apparent to a certain extent even in the commissioner's report filed before this Court, the applicant did not want to take steps so as to implead the actual encroachers of the property. In fact if the entire property in occupation of respondent no.3 is properly measured, it would be apparent that the entire alleged short fall in the property of the applicant is attributable to respondent no.3 alone. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is very well aware about the said fact, the applicant has been wantonly blaming this respondent while being in collusion with respondent no.3. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that this respondent is constrained to file this additional counter bringing the said facts to the notice of this Court.
28.It is further stated that, even as per the report filed by the commissioner as against 16 meters of width towards the eastern side plot belonging to respondent no.3, more than 17.3 meters is in occupation over the above 1.3 meters width of the area per-se false and the present LGC as filed against this respondent deserves to be dismissed in toto. It is pertinent to note that though being very well aware about all these facts after receipt of commissioner's report which has become apparent the applicant has wantonly chosen not to bring to the said facts to the notice of this Court by amending the schedule and taking appropriate pleadings in this respect mala fide.
19 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
29.Petitioner filed rejoinder to the said counter of R1 contending that the facts mentioned in the affidavit by the petitioner herein is with malafide intention. As a matter of fact, they are true and supported with evidence.
30.That the para No.2 of the counter is a traditional repeatation of the petition filed by the respondent to set-aside the ex parte order.
31.If the covers returned with an endorsement that the addressee is not residing at the address or left the place without instructions, the court may direct substituted service by publication in any newspaper in the local language having circulation in the area in which the respondent is known to have last resided.
32.It is very manifest that the respondent has not left the address at his place of residence with instructions. Here a clear question in the mind of a prudent man arises that the respondent has intentionally and deliberately violated the provision. Had the petitioner any such address at the last place resided. Where was the necessity for him no to furnish the address tot eh court. The respondent was very well aware of the proceedings, Even his family adviser, Mr. Venu Gopal Rao, Advocate, was not only in touch with respondent but time to time he was advising him. He must have read the English newspaper, Deccan chronicle. His evidence as a witness is essential to enable the other side to elicit truth in cross examination. The petitioner has a legal right to cross- examination him on the facts even on the personal affidavit filed by him. He has to be summoned.
33.As a matter of fact, the respondent wanted to watch the proceedings and after the ex- parte order was passed they under a plan, filed petition to set a side the ex-parte 20 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
order. This was done with full malafide object. Absolutely, there were no convincing grounds to set aside the ex-parte order.
34.That the Hon'ble court while taking cognizance of the petition complaint U/s 8 of the land grabbing Act, fully satisfied on the basis of the report of surveyor, original sale deed and the schedule therein and particularly the report of survey department wherein it is clearly mentioned that 180 sq. yds of the land of the petitioner is "GRABBED" by the neighbour. The respondent is the neighbour. The court rightly came to the conclusion and passed order that the respondent is a land grabber. How can now the respondent "holds" that he is not a land grabber. The respondent's denial and far from trouth. The respondent is a land grabber and grabbed 180 sq. yds of land from the plot of the petitioner.
35.In the same para some fanciful uncorroborated bald assertions have been made. The respondent has not mentioned any where in the proceedings that the land 180 sq. yds belongs to him and that it is not the part of plot No. 174A/B belonging to the petitioner nor any direct and primary evidence is filed in court. The counter is without corroborative, direct and primary evidence of the original plot belonging to.
36.It is not a case of boundaries. It is a case of grabbing of 180 sq. yds of land belonging to the petitioner. In such the respondent is bound to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
The respondent is even liable for punishment U/s 3 and 4 L.G. Act, of 1982. The contention that the claim of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is exorbitant. It means that the compensation is excessive and it may be reduced to a reasonable amount. When the respondent prays for lessening the compensation amount, it is left to the 21 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
discretionary powers of the court to reduce it to certain extent. However, it is an indirect admission of guilt.
37.The respondent in para 4 of the counter dt. 13-9-2007 has categorically admitted that the contents of para No.1 of the concise statements filed by the petitioner along with application are substantially correct and therefore not denied. This admission of the title, ownership and possession of the petitioner of plot No. 174 A/B, admeasuring 600 Sq. yds or 500 sq. mtrs. Which is morefully described in the schedule annexed situated in Sy.No. 102/1 of Hakeempet village within the approved layout of Sri
Venkateswara Co- operative House Building Society of A.P. legislators Ltd., within the limits of MCH, Hyderabad is sufficient to hold that the encroachment is in the land of petitioner. It is categorically stated in para 4 of the counter that the statement of the petitioner is substantially correct. In these circumstances, it is evident and stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the claim of the petitioner is true and there is the only the dispute about encroachment and grabbing of plot No.w174/A/B in S.No. 102/1 of Hakeempet Village. It is further admitted in the court by respondent in the same sequence that as per the recitals in the sale deed under which the petitioner purchased plot No. 174A/B, admeasures 600 sq. yds or 500 sq. mtrs. This admission of the respondent is further confirmation of the statement, affidavits, and contents of application filed U/S 8 of the L.G.C.Act. The denial later contradicts his own statement. He admits in the first line of para 4 that the concise statement of the petitioner is substantially correct. The concise statement of the petitioner is as follows:
22 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
38.That the applicant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land plot No:174A/B admeasuring 600 sq.yds or 500 sq.mtrs. which is fully described in the schedule annexed situated in Sy.No: 102/1 of Hakeempet within limits of Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad.
39.The respondent could not conceal the truth, it came out from his own mouth.
40.It is very clear that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in the main case is not regarding the boundary between the plots, but the dispute infact is of land i.e., 180sq. yds of land in Plot No:174A/B in Sy.No:102/1 of Hakeempet grabbed by the respondent. Again in the same context he has admitted that the dispute is about area of land, area means length and width and not boundaries. It is further confirms that the dispute is not regarding the boundaries between the plots, but area. The respondent is persued by its observation in the order dated 30-08-2007 setting aside ex-parte order. The observation is premature as the Hon'ble Court has not recorded the evidence of parties nor documentary evidence was tendered in evidence. The observation that the dispute is about boundaries between the plots is not based on the evidence. The trial infact has not commenced. It is at the stage of filing counter in main case. The issue of appointment of commissioner comes after the trial only to appreciate evidence of parties and not at the first stage. The observation was not needed. It has gone to help the respondent and caused prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when the respondent admitted that the dispute is about area.
41.The Vendor of the applicant was M.L.C. and he sold the plot No:174/A/B to the applicant as described in the schedule. There was no impediment. Had there been any construction, therein, or around it could have been depicted., in the schedule of 23 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
property. It was not there. It is subsequently manipulated in the irrelevant documents malafiedly. The respondent has incorrectly mentioned in the para 6 of the counter that there was a building with compound wall. The burden of proof is on the respondent.
As a matter of fact, neither there was any house therein nor any compound wall. The respondent has mentioned in his counter that on the southern side of petitioner's plot, there was a house in existence since 1988. Whose house it was, who was the owner of the house, who constructed and when. This person, if examined in this case, we would cross-examine him and elicit the truth as well as the relevant facts. How this came to the knowledge and from whom, that person has to be produced in court. His testimony would be subjected to cross-examination. A bald hearsay assertion can not be treated as evidence under the evidence Act. The person has to be produced as witness else it would be inferred that this assertion is fabricated.
42.The respondent has to summon V.Subramanium Naidu as witness and would cross- examine him. We will also cross-examine him. We will also cross-examine Smt. B.
Brunda in court. If they are not summoned and examined as witness. The entire fabricated story would be treated as cook and bull story. Even otherwise the above transactions in between the family members and yes-men are irrelevant to the case.
The facts mentioned in para No.6 therefore are quite irrelevant and do not have any bearing over the grabbed land of 180 sq.yds.
43.However, the respondent clearly admitted in the same para (6) of the counter that the respondent has encroached and grabbed only 37.5 sq.mtrs, is encroached by the respondent in plot No. 174/A/B belonging to the petitioner herein. In view of his own admission the respondent is a land grabber.
24 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
44.The respondent has also admitted in para 4 of the counter that infact there is a dispute with regard to the "area" it is futile to contend that there is a dispute of boundary In between; the plots. The details mentioned about the plots of M.L. A. colony are not relevant to the case.
45.Again in para 14, the respondent admitted that only 61.7 sq.mtrs is encroached upon 46.The documents submitted by the respondent are documents pertaining to, the original allotment of plot No.174 A,174A/B, and 213 by Sri. Venkateshwara Colony. There are also documents that show subsequent re-sale by these original allottees. These documents are more for personal knowledge. Some of these documents pertain to buying the "rear area "(beyond our dispute) from the society and re-selling in tits and bits to Plots 174A& 174A/A or addition on the back side of these plots. Submission of these documents was neither necessary nor called for. The bulk is more to cause confusion than to clarify things as these have hardly any briefing on the case.
47.It is submitted that when the petitioner applied for NOC for construction of house that the plots were surveyed and the deficit in the plot of the petitioner and encroachment was highlighted. The govt. surveyor measured both the adjacent plots (length and breadth) as tallied it with the measurements. They were supposed to have as per the plot length and breadth in the layout, he was carrying and found out while the frontage of the petitioner was just 11.2 instead of 16, the frontage of plot
No:174A/A was much in excess than he should have. After the court gave possession of the land belonging to the petitioner and boundary was shifted the plot of the petitioner is restored the dimensions it should have and the plot NO.174 A/A. also has the right dimensions and in fact a few feet more as measured by the surveyor 25 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
while giving possession and marking the demarcation to ascertain where the boundary-wall was to be put. This is why there is not a single equivocal statement in any of the petitions made by Mr. Arun (respondent) regarding their frontage before and at present or any deficit suffered after the shifting of boundary. They are maintaining purposeful silence in that regard.
48.They want to take a chance in re-survey to see if they can get a few feet more.
49.It has also been said earlier that the sale-deeds between Mr.D. Arun and Mrs.Brunda and Mrs.Padma and Mr.Arun of "areas" in tits and bits of 20, 70 and 110 sq.yds were executed recently in 2004 after they had understood that the petitioner was going to court. It was the family affair of Gopal Krishna hence it was easy and possible otherwise who would buy and sell land in 20s and 70s. These sale-deeds have been prepared to give dimensions to the plot but unfortunately more on the rear side the side that is out of range of dispute. These are more on paper than on ground and show the intention of cheating as can be proved by scrutinizing the documents of sale deed between Mrs.Padma and D.Arun.
50.The attention of the Court is drawn in particular towards this. The court would certainly be pleased to re-value the weight of the evidence revealed after the order passed to set-aside the ex parte order.
51.Mrs. Padma Rekha is alleged to have sold 110 sq.yds to Mr. Arun, respondent by way of a sale deed executed in 2004. This 110sq.yds,she had purchased from Mr.Gomago through her father who had the G.P.A. of the said property. The schedule of this 110sq.yds of property purchased by Mrs Padma Rekha shows measurement of 2.92, breadth and 31.25m length while the same 110 sq.yds(92.4m) is alleged to have been 26 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
re-sold to D. Arun, respondent through Mr. Arun's schedule map show measurements of 2.02 m breadth and 31.25 length which comes to 63m or 75sq.yds and not 110 sqyds as claimed.
52.The areas calculated as per scheduled of maps of the other sale deeds too do not tally both on paper and on ground. Since these are out of regularized land and on rear side and it is of no relevance from the point of view of case/ it is worthless to mention details.
53.It is absured to state that the dispute is merely of boundaries as boundaries are not erected in air. They move as the land moves. Hence boundaries go with land like blood goes with flesh. It is a matter of grabbing of land resulting in shifting of boundary eventually.
54.The respondent takes support in an alleged second M.R.O. report to demand for fresh survey on grounds of discrepancy in the reports. Some glaring facts emerge out of the alleged second report which the Hon'ble Court has to necessarily take cognizance
before ordering for re-survey.
55.The facts are as follows:
1. Is the second report authentic?
56.Does it have the official signature of M.R.O, Survey map details, surveyor's name and the necessary in ward and outward details. Particulars when the respondent is trying hectic efforts in converting the dispute as boundary dispute. As a matter of fact, the dispute as regarding the grabbing of 180 sq.yds of land in plot No.174/A/B belonging to the petitioner Observation of the Hon'ble Court does not amount to judicial direction.
27 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
57.The most important and decisive point is as follows:
58.The second M.R.O. Report (copy submitted by respondent) has localised the plots to belong to sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, whereas the plots fall actually in Sy.No 102 of Hakeempet village, as can be seen in the first M. R. O. Report and the schedules of the SALE DEEDS. The respondent has admitted in para 4 of his counter that he grabbed only 37.5 m in plot No.174/A/B belonging to the petitioner The extent shown is not correct, he has grabbed 180sq.yds Even the respondent accepted in his petition dt.13-09-2007 in para 9,10th line "merely measuring plots Nos. 174/A/A and 174/A/B would not meet the requirements, because there could be encroachment from other end also. The statement is plain acceptance that they are also encroachers.
In both the reports SCRUTINY of M.R.O. The respondent is declared as encroachers.
Now how can they say that they are not land grabbers or encroachers?
59.In view of the above facts, a survey is not necessary for the authenticity of second
M.R.O. report is in question and it does not pertain to the plots in question.
60.The survey No, of plots 174A,184A/B, and 213 is 102 of Hakeempet village and not 403 of Shaikpet village as stated in the alleged 2nd report. This can be ascertained by the sale-deeds and the first M.R.O. Report exhibit P2. The second report has to be quashed and disregarded once this report is declared unauthentic and wrong the question of descrepancy in reports as basis for ordering fresh survey could be manipulated and the surveyor be influenced by their back ground of power to their advantage in the particular circumstances of this case.
61.For the reasons stated above the application bearing LGC NO.41/2006, filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the respondent may be declared land grabber and 28 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
evicted from the application scheduled land and deliver the vacant possession of the land to the applicant.
62.In counter filed by respondent no.3 It is stated that the present application as framed and filed under Sub- section (1) of Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)
Act 1982, against this respondent is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and as such the same is liable to be dismissed against this Respondent No.3.
63.It is further stated that Originally the Applicant filed the application against respondents 1 and 2, but however this respondent was made a party to the present application on the application filed by Respondent No.1 herein, vide orders in I.A.
No.767 of 2012 dt.20-02-2012.
64.It is further that all the allegations and contentions are between the applicant and respondents 1 & 2, and this respondent has nothing to do with the same.
65.It is further stated that, the applicant made no allegation or grievance against this respondent, and this respondent was forcibly brought into the litigation by the 1st.
respondent to escape him self from the allegations and contentions made by the applicant as land grabber, and with a view to protract the litigation years together as the 1st respondent is under occupation and enjoyment of the applicant land as is evident from the record. It is submitted that the allegation and contention of the
Applicant in the present application is that the respondents 1 and 2 herein grabbed the land belonging to the Applicant based on the reports of the Joint Collector and
Surveyor.
66.It is further stated that as understood by this respondent an application was also filed seeking appointment of an Deputy Commissioner of Land Survey and consequently 29 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
the Deputy Commissioner had also filed a report that the respondents 1 and 2 herein grabbed the land belonging to the Applicant herein. In such circumstances there is no cause of action arose against this respondent, and therefore this respondent is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the proceedings and as such the present Land
Grabbing case is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.
67.It is stated that in the circumstances it is for the applicant to succeeded in establishing his case and for the respondents 1 & 2 to prove that they are not land grabbers and that they have not indulged in land grabbing activity.
68.It is stated that there are no allegations made by the applicant against this respondent in respect of any land grabbing activity and as such the present case is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.
69.It is further stated that as the Applicant him self alleged that the respondents 1 & 2 grabbed his land and also as the survey reports confirms the said fact of grabbing land by the respondents 1 & 2, it is for them to prove that they have not indulged in land grabbing, and that they are not land grabbers.
70.It is stated that Originally the application was filed in the year 2006 by the Applicant herein alleging that the Respondents 1 and 2 grabbed his land illegally admeasuring 180 Sq.yards, in plot No.174/A/B, in S.No. 102/1, Hakeempet Village, out of 600 Sq.
Yards. It is apparent from the record that evidence was adduced and commissions were also appointed and when the case is coming to a conclusion, the 1st respondent unnecessarily dragged this respondent into this present litigation, to protract the litigation without there being no grievance to applicant against this respondent.
30 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
71.In any case this respondent is neither a land grabber nor a encroacher and this respondent is nowhere connected with the allegations of the applicant and as such the application is liable to be dismissed against this respondent and requested to dismiss this application.
72.Respondent.no.3 filed additional counter as under:
It is submitted that the present application as framed and filed under Sub- section (1) of Section 8 of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982, against this respondent is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and as such the same is liable to be dismissed against this Respondent No.3.
73.It is stated that this Respondent was brought on record on the behest of the 1st
Respondent but not the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant has not made out any case or grievance against this Respondent and only states that the Regional
Deputy Director Survey and Land Records filed his report alleging excess in the land of this Respondent. It is relevant to mention here either at the time of filing the
Application seeking for Survey of Regional Deputy Director or after the appointment of the said Surveyor or at the time of conducting the Survey this Respondent was neither a party to the Application or to any other proceedings and as such the said report filed by the Regional Deputy Director Survey and Land Records is neither valid nor binding on this Respondent and as such the same has no bearing to the facts pleaded in this application.
74.It is stated that in the circumstances it is for the applicant to succeed RECEIVED in establishing his case and for the respondents 1 & 2 to prove that they are not land grabbers and that they have not indulged in land grabbing activity.
31 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
75.Further more no relief is sought against this Respondent and no allegations are made against this Respondent and in such circumstances this Respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and as such this application is liable to be rejected against this Respondent and requested to dismiss the petition.
1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property?
2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding?
3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982?
4. To what relief?
76.During the course of enquiry, applicant himself is examined as PW1 and got marked
EX- A1 to A7. R1 him self is examined as RW1 and got marked EX- B1 to B14.
Court commissioner is examined as CW1 and got marked EX-C1 to C3.
77.During the chief examination PW1 reiterated the contents of his application, in his chief affidavit. During the cross examination the witness deposed that, the northern side plot No. is 213 to his plot. His plot and Plot No. 213 are shown to have frontage from the road said in the layout of society 16 meters each. He was informed by surveyor that, the occupant of Plot No. 213 was in occupation of the land as per layout in the report of MRO it is stated that, owner of the plot No. 213 has encroached 29.6 sq. Meters. He has not obtained anything in writing with regard to the above mentioned facts from the said surveyor he does not about the report of
MRO. In the report of MRO, it is stated that owner of plot No. 213 has encroached 29.6 Sq. Meters and respondent No. 1 encroached 37.5 Sq. Meters. As on the date of his purchase there was no house in existence in plot No. 213 on the northern side in 32 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
plot No.213 on the northern side. As on the date of my purchase, there was no structure in plot No.174/A/A. He has verified the registered sale deeds mentioned in the counter at para-6 in respect of various acquisitions of portions of plot No.174/A and 174/A/A. Before purchase of the plot by him, he got it surveyed by a private surveyor. He did not obtain anything in writing from the said Surveyor.
78.He was personally present when the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, surveyed the application schedule land. The Deputy Director, Survey and Land
Records, measured plot No.213/A. He does not know whether Deputy Director,
Survey and Land Records, who is the Commissioner in this case, was directed to measure Plot Nos. 175/A, 175/B and 175. According to him, the Deputy Director,
Survey and Land Records started measuring from the northern boundary of plot
No.213 79.When the Deputy Director went on measuring from one side to another side. He has gone through the report and also the plan filed by the Deputy Director, S&LRs, appointed in this case. The report is dated 3-10-2008 and the plan is dated 29-9-2008.
He has not filed any objections to the said report. It is mentioned in the sketch filed by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, showing the frontage as 17.54 mts., on the road side to plot No.213.
80.In Ex.A-3 Plan, which was attested by the M.R.O. Shaikpet, it is noted that the land encroached by the owner of adjacent Plot No.174/A/A area is 150 Sq. Mtrs. It is on the basis of that entry in Ex.A-3 I made the above statement. Ex.A-3 is attested by the M.R.O. Ex.A-3 does not bear the seal of the M.R.O. and also the date.
33 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
81.RW.1-D.Arun, is present and sworn in on 15-6-2010 and continuation of chief examination:- 82.RW 1, D. Arun deposed that, he is 1st respondent in this case and he filed his affidavit evidence in this case. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed dt. 16-9-1983 executed by Venkateswara Coop. House Building Society in favour of V.Subramanyam Naidu along with plan. Ex.B-2 is the original sale deed dt. 21-3-1988 executed by
V.Subramanyam Naidu in favour of B.Brunda along with plan. Ex.B-3 is the registration extract of partition deed dt. 22-8-1996 entered into between B.
Gopalakrishna Reddy and others. Ex.B-4 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.31- 7-1996 executed by Gamago in favour of Padma Rekha. Ex.B5 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.2-4-2004 executed by padma Rekha in my favour. Ex.B-6 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.26-3-1996 executed by Venkateswara
Coop.housing society in favour of B.Brunda. Ex.B7 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.26-3-1996 executed by Venkateswara Coop.house building society in favour of Brunda. Ex.B-8 is the registration extract of sale deed dt. 2-4-2004 executed by
B.Brunda Reddy in my favour. Ex.B-9 is the original deed of rectification dt.15-4- 2008 executed by B.Padma Rekha in my favour along with plan. Ex.B- 10 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.22-4-83 executed by Venkateswara house building society in favour of P.Ammiraju. Ex.B11 is registration extract of sale deed dt.22-2- 1988 executed by P.Ammi Raju in favour of Alluri Suryanarayan along with typed copy of document. Ex. B12 is the registration extract of sale deed dt. 5-7-83 executed by Venkateswara Coop.house Building society in favour of Gamago. Ex.B13 is the
Certified true copy of layout of Sri venkateswara Coop House Building society in 34 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
Sy.No.403/1 of shaikpet village and 102/1 of Hakeempet village. Ex.B14 is the confirmation given by the ICICI Bank, Begumpet Branch, on my application confirming that the originals of Exs.B-5 and 8 are with them.
83. During the cross examination by counsel for applicant (Sri Mazar ulla khan
Advocate for kaneez Fathima Advocate) the witness deposed that, it is a fact he stated in my counter at para 4 that the contents of para 1 of the concise statement of the application are substantially correct. The statement made in para 3 of his chief examination that Venkateswara Co-op. House Building society had sold an area 600 sq. yds. to V. Subramanyam Naidu vide Regd. Sale deed dt. 16-9-83 is correct. He is not aware whether Subramanyam Naidu had obtained any permission from Joint
Collector or from local authority for purchase of the plot. Mr. Subramanyam Naidu had applied for permission for construction of a house over the plot purchased by him. The said permission along with plan is not filed in this case.
84.He got rectified his sale deed in the year 2008 during the pendency of this LGC in respect of measurements and sketch map. It is true that the plots were purchased by
Brinda and Padma Rekha who are wife and daughter respectively of B. Gopala
Krishna Reddy.
85.RW 1 further deposed that, he got measured the plot at the time of purchase. At the time of purchase of the plot the frontage portion is 18.92 mts. It is not true to suggest that I did not get the measurements of the frontage in the sketch plan attached to Ex.
B-5. It is a fact that 16 mts. + 2.02 mts. was mentioned as frontage measurements in the sketch attached to Ex.B-5.
35 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
86.As per the layout of Venkateswara Co-op. building society the frontage measurements of each plot is 16 mts. as per the layout. It is a fact that he got it mentioned in my chief affidavit that Subramanyam Naidu applied for construction permission applied in the year 1985 and got approval in the year 1989. It is a fact that
Padma Rekha was allotted the plot along with existing house in the year 1996 in the family partition in 1996.
87.It is a fact that in para 4 of his chief affidavit it was mentioned that Padma Rekha in addition to the land inherited by her in the partition, purchased an area of 110 sq. yds.
in plot No. 174/A from M. Gomago under regd. sale deed dated 31-9-1976. (It should be 31-7-1996. It is a typographical mistake ......added by witness).
88.During the further cross examination he deposed that, to be continued as applicant requested time and is a created document and the area of 110 sq. yds, covered by Ex.
B-4 was not in existence on the ground. It is a fact that in the plan appended to Ex.B- 4 the width of the land purchased from Gomago is given as 2.92 mts. while in the plan appended to Ex.B-5 the width of the strip of land purchased from Padma Rekha is shown as 2.02 mts.
89.It is true that Brinda purchased the land on the western side behind my plot i.e.
174/A/A and 174/A for an extent of 200 + 200 sq. yds, under Exs.B-6 and B-7. He is not aware whether Brinda got it regularized or not. He is not aware whether Padma
Rekha got the building renovated or not.
90.He further deposed that, Brinda Purchased 400 sq. yds. of land on western side of plot No. 174 / A * VA and 174 / A in the year 1997. He signed the affidavit filed in IA 852/07 for appointment of commissioner to survey the land. As per the orders in that 36 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
IA, the Deputy Director, S&LR has been appointed as Commissioner and filed his report. He filed work memo before the Commissioner. In para F of my work memo he requested the commissioner to find out whether I made any encroachment into plot No. 174 / A * VB 91.He further deposed that, the Commissioner reported that in his report stated that he was enclosing 128 sq. yds. before restoration. He has not filed the sanctioned plan for construction of building on the plot purchased by him.
92.CW1 deposed that, he was appointed as Commissioner to measure and survey plot nos.213/A, 174/A/B, 174/A/A and 174/A of Srivenkateswara Coop. House Building society. Ex.Cl is the Warrant issued to me. Ex.C-2 is the report with map, showing the application land, submitted by me in this case along with the objections, etc.
93.During the cross examination the witness deposed that, he has not filed the notes of measurements actually taken on the spot. It is available with me now. Ex.C-3 is the notes of my measurements. The frontage of plot No.174/A/B is 15.7 mts. Plot
No.213 is on the northern side of plot No.174/A/B. On the southern side of plot No.
174/A/B is Plot No. 174/A/A.
94. The frontage of plot No.213 as per the sanctioned layout of Venkateswara
Cooperative House Building Society is 16 mts (as per the sanctioned layout produced by Mandal Surveyor, Shaikpet Mandal during the course of execution of the warrant.
95.The witness further deposed that the road is on the eastern side of all plots. The present occupant of plot No.213 is in possession of 17.3 mts on the front side. Thus, he is in excess possession of 1.3 mts on front side. He has not demarcated the said 1.3 mts excess in occupation of the owner of plot No.213 As per Ex.C-1 warrant he 37 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
has to measure plot bearing Nos 213/A, 174/A/B, 174/A/A and 174/A of the said
Society. In all he has measured 11 plots bearing plot Nos. 197/A/D, 197/A/C, 197/A/B, 197/A/A, 213, 174/A/B, 174/A/A, 174/A, 175/A, 175/A/B and one unnumbered plot which is situated in between plot No.175/A and 175/A/B. He has not demarcated in Ex.C-5 since he was not specifically asked to demarcate 96.The witness further deposed that, as per his report the owner of plot bearing
No.174/A/B is in possession of 512.93 Sq.mts. which means he is excess possession of 12.93 Sq.mts (The owner of plot No.213 is in occupation of 522.79 Sq.mts. Thus, the owner of plot No.213 is in excess occupation of 22.79 Sq.mts.) He has not demarcated the area of 710 Sq. yards covered by Ex.B-5, sale deed, and B-9, rectification deed, under which respondent No.1 purchased those plots. He has given the reasons there for in his report at page:2.
97. The counsel for applicant did not choose to cross examine the witness.
98. Heard, both counsel, perused synopsis of written submissions filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
99.Now the point for consideration is “Whether respondents have grabbed land belonging to applicant as alleged ?”
Issue No. 1
100.It is not in dispute that one Venkateshwara Co-operative House Building
Society for AP legislators Ltd was the original owner of the application schedule property. One Balakrishnamma former MLC purchased application schedule plot number 174 A/B consisting of 600 Sq. Yrds situated at Hakimpet village of Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad under registered sale deed No. 2671/1983 date 21-09-1983, CC of 38 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
sale deed is filed and marked Ex. A4. (The said plot situate in ward No. 8 in block
No. 2 of Banjara Hills.) It is also not in dispute that the applicant purchased said plot from said Balakrisnamma under registered sale deed No. 1586/1994 dated 06-08- 1994 which is filed and marked as Ex. A1. The contents of the said documents are not disputed and therefore, it is proved that, the applicant is owner of application schedule plot No. 174A/B an extant of 600 Sq. Yrds. This issue is decided in favour of applicant.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 3
101. The main allegation of the applicant is that respondent No. 1 & 2 who are the owners of the neighboring plot bearing number 174A/B towards South of the application schedule plot. It is not in dispute that the extent of the plot No. 174A/B belonging to applicant consists of 600 Sq.Yard. It is also not in dispute that the frontage of each plot is 16 mtrs. The allegation of the applicant is that respondent No. 1 & 2 being the owners of
Southern plot have grabbed part of his plot to extend of one 80 Sq.Yrds., illegally, during his absence in the country. Applicant further alleges that when he went to USA and UK for studies in the year 2004, respondent No. 1 & 2 have illegally occupied portion of his plot to an extend of one 80 Sq. Yrds.
102. It is also not in dispute that to the east of the said plot, there is road, to the north of the said plot, there is plot number 213 belonging to. To the South of the said plot, there is plot number 1748 by a belonging to R1.
103. On the other hand, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 was his tenant and he vacated the plot long back. Therefore, R2 has no role in this matter.
39 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
104. The contention of respondent No. 1 is that he never occupied the plot belonging to applicant and the claim of the applicant is false.
105. No doubt in the matters of land grabbing issues, the crucial evidence is of official surveyor. In this case the plots belong to applicant and respondent No. 1 were measured and the court commissioner submitted his report marked as Ex.C4. The sketch appended to the commissioner report is also filed and marked as Ex. C5. The court commissioner is also examined as CW1.
106. The contention of R1 is that the owner of the plot No. 213 situated towards North of the applicant plot. The owner of Plot No. 213 has encroached to an extent of 70 Sq.Yards into the plot of applicant. Even as per the report of MRO and also reports submitted by
CW1 there is no such allegation by applicant against the owner of the northern plot.
107. During the cross examination, CW1 categorically deposed that the owner of the plot
No. 213 is excessively in possession of 1.3 Mtrs on the frontage of the said plot. CW1 further deposed in the cross examination that the owner of the plot No. 174A/B i.e., the applicant is in possession of 512.93Mtrs. which means he is in excessive possession of 12.93 Mtrs of land. In fact, the applicant shall have an extent of 500 Sq. Mtrs. in his plot number 174A/B but as per the commissioners report and evidence of CW1, applicant was in possession of 512.93 Sq. Mtrs. instead of 500 Sq. Mtrs, it means the applicant was in possession of excess land of 12.93 m². Therefore, his allegation that the adjacent plot owner i.e., R1 is in illegal occupation of his plot to an extent of 180 Sq. Yrds., remained unproved. No where in the commissioners report or in the evidence of CW1 it is stated that RW1 has encroached onto the land of applicant. The initial burden is on the applicant to prove that R1 to R3 have grabbed his land to an extent of 180 Sq. Yards.
40 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
108. Applicant miserably failed to prove his allegation that, basing on evidence on both sides and basing on evidence of CW1, it is clearly reported that applicant is in occupation of more than 500 Sq Mtrs. of plot No. 174A/B Therefore the allegation of applicant that R1 to R3 have occupied a portion of plot belongs to applicant is proved to be false. Therefore, this court holds that the applicant failed to prove his allegation that
R1 to R3 have grabbed his land to an extent of 180 Sq.yards in plot No. 174A/B of
Hakimpet village of Banjara Hills Hyderabad situate in Venkateshwara Co-operative
House Building Society for AP legislators Ltd, and in the result the application of the applicant has to be dismissed.
To what relief ?
109. In result the application dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by typist of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2024.
X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE CLAIMANT:FOR THE RESPONDENT: PW 1 : Dr. Zaffar Shah NawazRW 1: D. Arun
Court Witness: CW 1: A. Bhaskar
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.A1Is the Original sale deed dated 06-08-1994
Ex.A2Plan given by MRO in respect of application schedule property
Ex.A3Is market value certificate
Ex.A4CC of sale deed dated 21-09-1983 41 LGOP.763-17
Dt:22-04-2024
Ex.A5Endorsement of Joint Collector dated 31-12-2005
Ex.A6Is the CC of report of RDO, Secunderabad dated 10-08-2007.
Ex.A7Is the CC of punchanama dated 27-07-2007
Ex.A8Is the form No.VII dated 27-07-2007
DOCUMENT MARKED FOR RESPONDENT
Ex.B1Is the Original sale deed dated 16-09-1983
Ex.B2Original sale deed dated 21-03-1988
Ex.B3Registration extract of partition deed dated 22-08-1996
Ex.B4Registration extract of Sale deed dated 31-07-1996
Ex.B5Registration extract of Sale deed dated 02-04-2004
Ex.B6Registration extract of Sale deed dated 26-03-1996
Ex.B7Registration extract of Sale deed dated 26-03-1996
Ex.B8Registration extract of Sale deed dated 02-04-2004
Ex.B9Original rectification deed dated 15-04-2008
Ex.B10Registration extract of sale deed dated 22-04-1983
Ex.B11Registration extract of sale deed dated 22-02-1983
Ex.B12Registration extract of sale deed dated 05-07-1983
Ex.B13Certified true copy of Layout of Sri.Venkateshwara Co-operative House Building Society
Ex.B14Confirmation of given ICICI Bank,Begumpet.
Marked through Commissioner: Ex.C1Is warrant of court commissioner
Ex.C2 Report with map
Ex.C3Notes of measurement
Ex.C4Commissioner report
Ex.C5 Sketch appended to Commissioner report.
X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD