Dismissed

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, v. The Special Court

Telangana HC13 Oct 2014WP/30380/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of a Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which had declared respondents as land grabbers. The court declined to interfere on the ground that the petitioner's plea of lacking interest was merely a pleading unsupported by evidence. The appeal against land grabbing conviction was rejected at the

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, Vs The Special Court — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30380 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment, dated 25.3.2014, in L.G.C.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad.

¶5

2. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are the applicants, and one Rupa Trading (I)(Pvt.,) Ltd., rep.by its M.D. Jayadeva Reddy and the petitioner herein are the respondents, in the aforementioned Land Grabbing Case. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the Special Court below.

¶6

3. Applicants filed the aforementioned Land Grabbing Case under Section 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, “the Act”) to declare the respondents as land grabbers, to restore possession of the application schedule properties by evicting the respondents and any other persons claiming through or under them, to award compensation and damages, to punish the respondents and to award costs.

¶7

4. Applicants claimed their title to the application schedule plots described in schedules A, B, C(A), C(B) and D through sale deeds marked as Exs.A-2 to 11 (certified extracts), originals of which are Exs.A-21 to A-30.

¶8

5. Respondents denied the title of the applicants and pleaded that

¶9

they purchased application schedule plots through registered sale deeds much prior to the sale in favour of the applicants.

¶10

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

¶11

“1. Whether the applicants are the owners of the application schedule property?

¶12

2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicants?

¶13

3. Whether the respondents can be termed as land grabbers within the meaning of Sec.2(d) & 2(e) of the Act?

¶14

4. To what relief?”

¶15

7. To substantiate the case of the applicants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-30 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.

¶16

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court below came to a conclusion that the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1 and the documents produced by the applicants proved that the applicants purchased the application schedule property and hence, the applicants are the owners of the application schedule property; that the respondents, though claimed that they are earlier purchasers, they did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of their contentions and therefore, the Special Court held that the respondents are the land grabbers, and accordingly, allowed the application. Challenging the same, respondent No.2 therein filed the present Writ Petition.

¶17

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner has no personal interest over the property in question and so, the question of declaring him as land grabber does

¶18

not arise and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶19

10. A specific plea has been taken by the applicants in the application that both the respondents grabbed the land in question. The evidence of P.W.1 is also to the effect that both the respondents grabbed the land in question. That evidence remained unchallenged. Once a fact has been stated by a witness and the same has not been denied or disputed in the cross examination, it is deemed that it is an admitted fact and it can be accepted. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has no interest in the property is only a pleading. That pleading does not amount to evidence unless the petitioner comes to the witness box and says that he has no interest in the land. Such an evidence is lacking. So, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner herein as well as respondent No.1 in the Court below grabbed the land in question. Therefore, the Special Court rightly passed the impugned judgment and therefore, that judgment needs no interference by this Court, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________

¶23

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 13.10.2014 AMD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶25

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.30380 OF 2014

¶27

DATE: 13.10.2014

¶28

AMD

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, v. The Special Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, v. The Special Court

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

M/s. Komala Theatre Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T)

T. Srihari Rao,S/o.Sri T.Lakshminarayana Vs The Senior Divisional Operating Manger

K. Ramachander Vs The State of Ap

Ch.v.v.R.S.N Murthy Vs The Commissionar of Collegiate Education Government of

G. Sheshaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs Sri John Manoj