WP/26812/2006 of E.A. Chinna Swamy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 26 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner purchased plot No.211 admeasuring 333.8 sq.yards under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1988 from M/s ThreeMurthy Weaker Sections Cooperative Housing Society Limited(hereafter called, the society). The land is comprised in survey No.74/12situated at East Marredpaly in Secunderabad. He obtained buildingpermission vide proceedings in CBR No.11(18) on 28.10.2004 underSection 181(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and commenced theconstruction. He alleges that respondent No.3, namely, the MandalRevenue Officer(MRO), East Maredpally, started interfering with theconstruction activity on the ground of pendency of L.G.C.No.167 of 1997filed by him(MRO) before the Special Court constituted under theAndhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereafter called,the Special Court). Therefore, he filed the present writ petition allegingthat he is not a land grabber, that the society sold the land which waspurchased by it under registered document No.188/1978 and that hebeing not a party to L.G.C., interim orders passed by the Special Courtare not binding on her.

At the stage of admission itself, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue (Assignment) opposed the writ petition contendingthat the petitioner was arrayed as a party respondent to L.G.C.No.167 of1997 and therefore, the order of injunction passed by the Special Courtprohibiting any construction operates against him. This is disputed. Thelearned Government Pleader also produced a copy of the order inW.P.No.19568 of 2005 dated 06-09-2005 passed by this Court orderingstatus quo regarding the possession and the construction.

In many such cases filed before this Court alleging interferenceby the revenue authorities in respect of the land comprised in surveyNo.74 (various sub-divisions), this Court passed the following order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the followingmanner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally shall fileapplication before the Special Court for impleading thepetitioners in L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and obtainappropriate orders against the petitioners. Till then, the MandalRevenue Officer shall not in any manner disturb the possessionof the petitioners. Further, in view of the orders of injunctiongranted by the Special Court on 08.12.1998, as referred toherein above, it would be appropriate to direct status quo as ontoday with regard to possession as well as construction by thepetitioners.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice ofthis Court a copy of the order dated 01.11.2002 passed by this Court inW.P.No.21825 of 2002. By the said order, W.P.No.21825 of 2002 wasdisposed of observing that the revenue officials shall not interfere withthe possession of the petitioner therein and that the person claimingownership is bound by any decision of the Special Court in L.G.C. as thevendor society was a party in the said proceedings. In this case, thepetitioner obtained sanction on 28.10.2004 and commencedconstruction recently. Though this Court is not inclined to pass any orderregarding construction, following the order passed by this Court inW.P.No.21825 of 2002 dated 01.11.2002, this writ petition is alsodisposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with thepossession of the petitioner. It shall, however, be open to MRO toimplead the petitioner herein, if not already impleaded, in the pendingL.G.C. and seek appropriate orders from the special Court. No costs.

_____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

26[th] December, 2006ghn