WP/479/2005 of Tadavarthi Venkateswarlu S/o Sundaramaiah Vs K. Anantha Padmanabha Swami S/ on 30 December 2008

1. Tadavarthi Venkateswarlu S/o Sundaramaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-4, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD,Guntur

2. Duddukuri China Sivaiah S/o Guravaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur

3. Duddukuri Venkateswarlu S/o Guravaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur

4. Pagadala Kasaiah S/o Kotaiah

R/o D. NO. 25-14-9, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur

5. Pagadala Nageswara Rao S/o Kotaiah

R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur

.... PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. K. Anantha Padmanabha Swami S/

R/o Jualakallu, Guntur District

2. K.K. Pardhasaradhi S/o K. Ananthapadmanabhaswamy R/o BHEL, Hyderabad

3. K.K. Venu Gopal Swamy S/o Not Known to the petitioner

4. K.K. Vaschapathi

5. KK. Varada Chari S/o Not Known to the petitioners

6. K.K. Venkata Ranganadha Swamy

7. K.K. Andalamma W/o (the Address for Service of the Notice tothethe respondnets 2 to 7 is that of R2 Senior Manager, BHEL, Hyderabad

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the natureof Writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the Special Court under APLand Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in dismissing IA No. 525/03 in LGC 10/96,dated 02-07-2004 as unconstitutional and consequently declare thepetitioners have the right to be heard by the special Court under A.P. LandGrabbing (Prohibition) Act after reopening the case in LGC 10of 1996 andpass order or orther orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7.:MR.PARAVASTUKRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: GP FOR REVENUEThe Court made the following:HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

W.P.No.479 OF 2005

JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy)

This petition is filed seeking to assail the order dated 2-7-2004 in I.A.No.525 of 2003 in L.G.C.No.10 of 199,6 on the file of theSpecial Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitionersherein under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex partedecree dated 12-02-1997 made in LGC.No.10 of 1996, wasdismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.3. The respondents 1 to 7 herein filed LGC.No.10 of 1996against the petitioners herein and 15 others for a declaration that thepetitioners herein and others are the land grabbers in respect of 880sq.yards in Sy.No.55 and T.S.No.510 of Guntur Village, GunturDistrict and for evicting them from the said land and for delivery ofvacant possession of the same in favour of the respondents 1 to 7herein. The notices in the LGC were directed to be issued againstthe petitioners herein and 15 others. As seen from the impugned

judgment, the notices sent by registered post were returned as‘refused’ by the respondents therein i.e., the petitioners herein and15 others. Thereafter, the respondents in the LGC were set ex parteon 25-04-1996. Subsequently, after full-fledged trial and afterrecording the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Courtallowed the LGC and declared that the respondents 1 to 7 hereinare the owners of the schedule property and the petitioners hereinand 15 others are the land grabbers and consequently directed thepetitioners herein and others to vacate the schedule property anddeliver possession of the same within two months to therespondents 1 to 7 herein. Pursuant to the said judgment of theSpecial Court, proceedings were issued by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Guntur, directing eviction of the petitioners herein and othersthrough the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur in 1998. As seen fromthe record, the said proceedings issued by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer were duly served on the petitioners herein and some otheroccupants of the lands. The petitioners herein did not question thesaid proceedings nor did they file any application for setting asidethe ex parte order or the ex parte decree granted in LGC.No.10 of1996. It is only in the year 2003, for the first time, they have chosento file I.A.No.525 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for settingaside ex parte decree dated 12-02-1997 on the ground that theywere not aware of the passing of the ex parte order or the ex parte decree in the LGC.

4. The Special Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the notices issued to the petitioners herein andothers were returned as refused and, therefore, they were set exparte and subsequently the Revenue Divisional Officer issued theproceedings for eviction of the petitioners herein and others, pursuant to the directions of the Special Court, whichwere served on the petitioners herein in the year 1998. The Special Court further observed that petitioners have not taken any stepsand, therefore, they lack bona fides and it is nothing but abuse ofprocess of law and was intended only to drag on the evictionproceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition isfiled.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit thatthe petitioners are daily wage earners engaged in constructionwork. Neither the petitioners nor their family members will beavailable at their houses when the postman sought to serve thenotices and, therefore, the endorsements of refusal appearing onthe notices are not genuine. The learned counsel for therespondents 1 to 7 would strongly oppose the same on the groundthat the petitioners were aware of the ex parte order passed against them and also the ex parte decreeand with a view to drag on the proceedings and to squat on thepremises as long as possible, they did not question the saidproceedings till 2003.

6. As seen from the record, the notices were, in fact, issuedto the petitioners herein and others in LGC through registered postand they were all returned unserved as ‘refused’. There areabsolutely no grounds to suspect the genuineness of theendorsement made by the postal authorities. Further, after regulartrial, the land grabbing case was allowed, based on the oral anddocumentary evidence available on record. Even after the RevenueDivisional Officer had issued the proceedings to the MandalRevenue Officer for eviction of the petitioners herein and others fromthe schedule land pursuant to the directions of the Special Courtand though the said proceedings were duly served on thepetitioners herein in the year 1998 itself, they have not chosen toapproach the Court seeking to set aside the ex parte order anddecree passed against them. They have slept over the matter for another five years and filed application in I.A.No.525 of 2003 underOrder IX Rule 13 only in the year 2003. It is obvious that thepetitioners have not chosen to take any immediate steps tovindicate their rights, if any. Only with a view to continue theirsquatting on the premises to the extent possible and only after theirphysical eviction, they have rushed to the Court to perpetuate theirunauthorized squatting on the land. Such conduct on the part of thepetitioners cannot be countenanced or encouraged. As rightlyobserved by the Special Court, the conduct of the petitioners hereinis nothing but abuse of process of law. They have successfullydragged the matter for more than seven years for thwarting theeviction proceedings. The Special Court has rightly rejected thepetition on the ground that it lacks bona fides.7. As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of theapplication were not duly established by the petitioners herein, theimpugned order rightly dismissing the said application does not callfor any interference. There are absolutely no merits in the writpetition.

8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs.

__________________

V.ESWARAIAH, J

30[th] December 2008Lrkm

______________________

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

To1.2CCs to2.2CD copies

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}