Disposed

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, v. M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Telangana HC27 Mar 2012WP/7635/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the Special Court's order allowing a belated impleadment of a third Cooperative Society in a Land Grabbing Case, the High Court quashed the lower court's order on the grounds of no grave error and directed speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without order as to costs; Special Court directed to complete trial within two months.

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, Vs M/s.Sree… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7635 OF 2012

¶4

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶5

The petitioner i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, filed L.G.C.No.191 of 1996 under Section 8(1) of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act), against M/s. Anilatmaja Cooperative House Building Society (hereafter, the first Society). Claiming the land admeasuring Acs.13.28 gts in T.S.No.1/1/1, Block-H, Ward No.10 of Shaikpet Village (hereafter, the petition schedule land) to be Government land, the petitioner alleged that the first Society grabbed the land and sought for a declaration and direction to deliver possession. Subsequently, M/s. Jagadamba Cooperative Housing Society (hereafter, the second Society) got impleaded as respondent No.2 to the LGC by reason of the orders of the Special Court in I.A.No.376 of 2006 dated 18.04.2008. T h e Special Court, it appears, completed enquiry and the matter is coming up for arguments.

¶6

The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, lodged a compliant on 04.01.2011 with the Sub Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills. The complaint alleged that M/s. Sree Panchamurty Cooperative House Building Society (hereafter, the third Society) is trying to grab the petition schedule land. The Tahsildar also seized one tipper and air compressor near the land. Having come to know that, the third Society filed I.A.No.294 of 2011 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1860, read with Section 8 of the Act. In the said application, the third Society alleged that the petition schedule property is part of the land admeasuring Acs.15.00 in Survey No.403/p corresponding to Old Survey No.129/105 and Survey

¶7

No.129/35/1 owned by the said Society and that it has been in their enjoyment. The third Society also claimed that the total extent of land was purchased under two agreements of sale dated 12.02.1974 and 14.03.1974 and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. They also alleged that they came to know about pendency of the LGC only when the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Village, lodged a police complaint.

¶8

The petitioner opposed the application, inter alia, contending that the publication of notification of taking cognizance of the LGC by the Special Court under the proviso to Section 8(6) read with Rule 7(2) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, bars any subsequent application for impleadment.

¶9

The Special Court considered the point with reference to provisions of the Act and decided cases and allowed for impleadment.

¶10

The Assistant Government Pleader contends that when the third Society approached the Special Court for impleadment belatedly at the stage of arguments, the Special Court committed grave error in allowing the application. She would nextly contend that the claim of the third Society is not borne out by any survey records nor it is prima facie demonstrated that they have any enforceable interest in the petition schedule land.

¶11

After receiving the notice, the third Society (the first respondent herein) appeared through a counsel. He would submit that any order passed by the Special Court is binding on all persons having interest in the land as stipulated by Section 8(6) of the Act and therefore, when the petitioner purchased the land under two agreements of sale about three decades ago, they are proper and necessary parties to the LGC. He would also point out that only when the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Village, lodged a police

¶12

complaint, the third Society came to know about the LGC and therefore, the delay, if any, is not fatal.

¶13

We have perused the well-considered detailed order passed by the Special Court. The counsel for the third Society brought to our notice, the following findings and observations from the impugned order of the Special Court. For ready reference, we extract them hereunder.

¶14

“The petitioner, as per the averment, came to know about LGC proceedings when FIR was lodged on 04.01.2011 and they came forward with this petition almost immediately. It claims that it had no knowledge about the Gazette Notification made under Section 8(6) of the Act. The petitioner has nothing to do with any of the respondents. It is claiming rights to the subject land in its own right under two Agreements of Sale executed in his favour. It claims that it has been in possession of the application property. The applicant in the LGC is the State Government. If the petitioner is not impleaded in the LGC, the Judgment to be rendered will not be binding on it giving raise to multiplicity of proceedings ultimately leading into all the parties getting bogged down in the quagmire of unending litigation. When it is claiming rights over the application property independently on the basis of two Agreements of Sale, it is certainly an interested party. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner can be permitted to be impleaded as a party respondent to the main case it being a necessary/proper party having interest in the application land. Its addition would contribute for the effectual and complete adjudication of the case irrespective of the fact that it would further delay the proceedings.”

¶15

The above findings and observations are preceeded by reasons supported by statute law as well as precedents. We do not find any grave error apparent on the face of the order warranting exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction. We, however, observe that the Special Court may complete the trial and dispose of the LGC, which is pending since 1996, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

¶16

counsel for the third Society (the first respondent herein) undertakes to cooperate with the Special Court in expeditious completion of the enquiry.

¶17

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. WPMP.No.9681 of 2012 also stands dismissed.

¶18

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) 27^th March 2012 RRB

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, v. M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, v. M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunitha Krishnan Hyderabad Vs Govt of Ap. Chief Secretary and 12 Others

Papayapalem Gram Panchayat Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. M. Pradyumma Vs Mr. Tabassum Saleem

Buchipudi Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Syed Sakeena Begum Vs The Authorized Officer

M. Ravinder Reddy, Vs The State Bank of Patiyala