WP/22006/2006 of G.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

Respondents 4 to 16 approached respondents 1 and 2 seekingregularization/allotment of small extents of plots in survey No.27/1 situated at GuttalaBegumpet Village of Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The saidapplications were filed to avail the benefit given by the first respondent by reason oftheir orders in G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.7.2002. These applications were enquiredinto by the second respondent, who sent report/proposals on 30.8.2005. Afterconsidering the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10.5.2006,allotting land admeasuring 183.92 Sq.yards (except in the case of two petitioners,where the extent of land is more), under Section 23(4) of the Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act, for brevity). Assailing the said G.O.s, thepresent writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari.

The case of the three petitioners is that they are bona fide purchasers of plot Nos.5and 8 to 13 (7 plots) in survey No.27/2 from Kummari Rajaiah, who was the owner ofthe land admeasuring Acs.3.20 guntas in survey No.27. After death of Rajaiah, hissuccessors executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Y.JaihindReddy, who obtained exemption from the second respondent under G.O.Ms.No.733,dated 31.10.1988 and that he got approved the layout by Hyderabad UrbanDevelopment Authority (HUDA) in respect of the said land. Jaihind Reddy sold theplots to various persons. It is further alleged that the vendor of respondents 4 to 16(K.Gopichand) did not file any declaration before the second respondent and,therefore, he was declared as surplus land holder including the land admeasuringAcs.2.20 guntas in survey No.27/1. The petitioners allege that the contestingrespondents suppressed these facts and obtained the impugned G.O. After doing so,with the help of anti-social elements, they demolished small rooms existing on theland of the petitioners leading to the lodging of a complaint with the Commissioner ofPolice, Cyberabad, on 05.10.2006. The petitioners contend that Vemulapalli Venkateswara Rao, who executed unregistered agreements of sale in favour ofSurender, who executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 4 to 16, hadno title to the property and, therefore, the impugned G.O. is unsustainable.

At the stage of admission itself, second respondent filed counter affidavit.Respondents 11 and 15 also filed separate counter affidavit, and other respondentsare represented by Counsel.

The Special Deputy Collector in the office of the Special Officer, filed the counteraffidavit on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated that the land in survey No.27admeasuring Acs.2.21 guntas (10216.76 Sq. meters) is recorded in the name ofVemulapalli Venkateswara Rao at Khata No.2 and an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas isrecorded in the name of Kummari Rajaiah against survey No.27/AA. Therefore, theland which is recorded in the name of Venkateswara Rao alone was considered forcomputation and the same was declared as surplus. The applications submitted bythe respondents 4 to 16 were enquired into and taking into consideration theregistered sale deeds, proposals were submitted to the first respondent forregularizing the land in survey No.27/1. It is also stated that the land purchased bythe petitioners in survey No.27/2 belonging to Kummari Rajaiah was not computedto Vemulapalli Venkateswara Rao and, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of anymerit.

Respondents 11 and 15 challenged the locus standi of the petitioners. Theaverments in their counter on this aspect are as follows.

I submits that the petitioners admittedly are owners of land in Sy.No.27/2 ofGuttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtand do not own any land in Sy.No.27/1 in which these respondents have landas mentioned above. The petitioners therefore have locus standi to challengeG.O.ms.No.539 Revenue (UC.II) dt.10.5.2006. The petitioners are in noway concerned with the orders of the regularization passed under theabove G.O. in favour of these respondents. They have tried to misleadthe court and tried to get interim orders which would have caused grave andirreparable loss to these respondents.Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtand do not own any land in Sy.No.27/1 in which these respondents have landas mentioned above. The petitioners therefore have locus standi to challengeG.O.ms.No.539 Revenue (UC.II) dt.10.5.2006. The petitioners are in noway concerned with the orders of the regularization passed under theabove G.O. in favour of these respondents. They have tried to misleadthe court and tried to get interim orders which would have caused grave andirreparable loss to these respondents.

A perusal of the impugned G.O., would show that the Governmentregularized/allotted the land in favour of respondents 4 to 16 in respect of surveyNo.27/1 of Guttala Begumpet Village. Admittedly the petitioners purchased plotNos.5 and 8 to 13 comprised in survey No.27/2. Therefore, they cannot have anygrievance if the land in survey No.27/1 is allotted to the respondents. Further, it isaverred in the counter affidavit of respondents 11 and 15 that when the petitionersmade attempts to occupy the land in survey No.27/1, they filed O.S.No.2303 of 2006on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, andobtained an order of ad interim injunction in I.A.No.3794 of 2006 dated 17.10.2006.This is not denied by the petitioners. If the petitioners have any grievance that therespondents 4 to 16, who purchased the property in survey No.27/1, and there is anythreat to the possession of the petitioners in survey No.27/2, their remedy is toagitate the matter in the Civil Court. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted tothe petitioners.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners andcontesting respondents to resolve their dispute in the Civil Court. No costs.

_____________