WP/15496/1997 of Sappa Sanyasi Rao Vs M/s. R.B.Sriram And Company Limited on 26 December 2008

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHANREDDY

WRIT PETITION NO. 15496 OF 1997ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 14914 OF 2005

Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August,Two Thousand and Eleven Between WP No. 15496 of 1997

Sappa Sanyasi Rao and others

Petitioners

AND

M/s. R.B. Sriram and Company Ltd.,Rep. by its Power of Attorney HolderMr. Tadi Kamalakar Rao and another Respondents WP No. 14914 of 2005Sappa Sanyasi Rao and others Petitioners

AND

M/s. R.B. Sriram and Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Power of Attorney HolderMr. Tadi Kamalakar Rao and another Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:COMMON ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

These two writ petitions arise out of the judgmentdated 13.5.1997 in L.G.C. No.220 of 1994 on the file ofthe Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act, Hyderabad, to declare that the applicant is the ownerof the application schedule property to an extent of 978Sq. yards, which is part and parcel of an extent of Ac.15-20, 716 Sq. feet in TS No. 78 of Visakhapatnam Mandal,Visakhapatnam Town and to deliver vacant possession ofthe same by declaring the respondents as land grabbers.The said L.G.C. was allowed.

The Respondent Nos. 15, 34 and 38, filed W.P. No.14914 of 2005 without making the other respondents inthe L.G.C. as parties. But, however, they made theSpecial Court as Respondent No.2. The writ petition wasdismissed for default against the applicant in the LGC i.e.the first respondent in the said Writ Petition vide orderdated 18.4.2011. Therefore, nothing survives in the saidwrit petition.

Insofar as W.P. No. 15496 of 1997 is concerned,though there are 45 respondents in the L.G.C., this writpetition is filed against 24 respondents alone. Thepetitioners have not made the other 21 respondents asparties to the writ petition. Thus the judgment of theSpecial Court has become final against the 21

respondents therein.

It is the case of the applicant that the scheduleproperty is 978 Sq. Yards and the respondents grabbedthe said land and they are liable to be evicted. It is thecase of the respondents before the Special Court that therespondents 4 to 44 in the L.G.C. are in possession ofsmall extents of land and the portion in occupation of therespondents has not been demarcated with specificboundaries by giving specific schedule and, therefore, theapplicant is not entitled for the relief sought for. But thesaid contention was rejected by the Special Court statingthat there cannot be any impediment to pass a decree foreviction of the respondents even though the extent inpossession of each of the respondents is not specified ordemarcated by filing a sketch. Therefore, we are of theopinion that the judgment and decree is not separableand if that be so, when the judgment has become final asagainst 21 respondents in the L.G.C., the writ petitioners,who are the remaining 24 out of the 45 respondents, arenot entitled to have a different order and decree.Therefore, we are of the opinion that without impleading allthe respondents in the L.G.C., as the judgment of theSpecial Court is not separable, no relief can be granted tothe petitioners herein.

Adverting to the contention of the petitioner that thePower of Attorney holder is entitled to depose on behalf ofthe applicant company without revoking the power ofattorney already granted in favour of one Mr. Nakara,Ex.A-1 appointing PW-1 to act on behalf of the applicantcompany is illegal and the power of attorney holder soappointed is not entitled to speak for the company and

mark the documents, it is submitted by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that one Mr. Nakara was givenPower of Attorney for the specific purpose of filing varioussuits against the occupants and all the suits were decreedand copies thereof were also filed. Whereas, the Power ofAttorney in favour of PW-1 is for the specific purpose offiling L.G.C. and, therefore, there is no conflicting power infavour of Mr. Nakara and PW-1. It is further contended thatthe Special Court has allowed claim of the applicantbased on Ex.A-7 and A-8. Insofar as Ex.A-7, Order oftheTahsildar, Visakhapatnam dated 7.4.1974 isconcerned, it is stated that the Tahsildar is incompetent toassign the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 and so also theorder which was ratified by the Government under Ex.A-8,also is untenable.

We have perused the said documents. It is to beseen that the Government vide their Memo No.567-J/67-Rev.(J) Department dated 1.5.1972, in revision filed by theapplicant claiming patta to an extent of Ac.15.00 and oddagainst the orders of the Board in its BP Rt. No.58 of 1967dated 4.2.1967, remanded the matter to the Tahsildarrequesting him to get the claim of the revisionpetitioner/applicant enquired into and dispose of thesame in terms of B.P. Rt. No. 404 dated 24.6.1963 and toact upon the Government Order dated 1.5.1972. TheCollector also gave instructions in Rc. No.14273/72-D3dated 8.8.1972 to take necessary further action in thematter. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, after conductingthorough enquiry and after inspecting the land, as per theinstructions contained in B.P. Mis. No.404 of 1963 dated24.6.1963, held that the land in question is a private land and, therefore, the formal recognition of the rights, whichhave already been accrued prior to Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area), Estates Abolition Act requires to berecognized and the provisions of A.P. Vacant Lands inUrban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation Ordinance), 1972 isalso not applicable. It is also observed that a portion of theland is already covered by built up area and accordingly,ordered assignment to an extent of Ac.10.00 and odd inT.S.No. 78 of Block No.9 of Waltair Ward ofVisakhapatnam Municipality and ordered that the samebe treated as a private house site belonging to theapplicant. After the said order of the Tahsildar,Visakhapatnam, marked as Ex.A-7 dated 7.4.1974, theRevenue Department, vide their Memorandum No.502/JA2/84-18 dated 29.9.1989, marked as Ex.A-8, hasconfirmed the order of the Tahsildar holding that theTahsildar simply implemented the earlier directions of theGovernment in Memo No.567/J2/67 dated 1.5.1972 and,therefore, the transaction of the year 1895, 1920, 12921and 1956 show that it is a single piece of property and aprivate house site in Grama Kantam area and theprovisions of Estate Abolition Act are not attracted as perthe judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the order of theTahsildar under Ex.A-7 was rightly confirmed by theGovernment under Ex.A-8 and the same has becomefinal, as no one questioned the said order. Therefore, itcannot be said that marking of the said records throughthe General Power of Attorney Holder is either invalid orunauthorized. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not seeany reason to interfere with the order impugned herein.

Consequently, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________Justice V.Eswaraiah

______________________________Justice G.Krishna Mohan ReddyAugust 24, 2011MAS