Allowed

Bharat Fabricators, Hyd and Another v. Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, Hyd and Twelve Others

Telangana HC28 Feb 2023CRP/5934/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the trial court committed an error by proceeding under the repealed A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, when the executive notification had mandated execution of pending decrees via the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order setting aside the lower court's execution directions was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.04.2017 in I.A. No. 1021 of 2017 was set aside; the Civil Revision Petition was allowed; respondents directed to proceed with execution of the decree as per CPC.

Bharat Fabricators, Hyd and Another Vs Shirish… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁶⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5934 0F 2017

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the Order dated'10-04-2017 passed in l.A. No. 1021 of 2017 in L.G.C.O.p. No.552 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Bharat Fabricators, Having its unit at Portion of Plot No.A- 1g, Cooperative industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad-37. Rep. by its proprietor M. pushpal Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy, Aged about 70 years.

¶10

Thirumala Forging (Tirumala Enterprises), Having its unit at portion of plot No.A-19, Cooperative industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad-37. Rep. by its Proprietor, C. Ram Reddy S/o C. Mohan Reddy, Aged about 55 years.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1O & 14 IN I.A.NO.1O21l,t7 tN o.P.NO.552/1998

¶12

AND

¶13

Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, S/o Late Sitaram Dhopeshwarkar, Aged about 60 years, Presently Rl/o Sth Floor, United Enclave Apartments, Leela Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

¶15

,.rPET|T|ONER,|N IA NO.1021 12017 tN O.p.NO.552/1998

¶16

The Cooperative industrial Es6te, BaiadgariHyderabad-37. Rep. by its

¶17

lhe Ma nda l RByel ue Off igejjela n&AilqnSa_ Reddy Djstrict

¶18

...RRs.8 & 9 lN lA NO.102112017 lN O.P.NO.5s2l1998

¶19

Gopi, Sio Nemulori, Aged about 55 years, Rt/o Pardhiwadi, Fathenagar, Hyderabad.

¶20

Namulori, S/o Not known, Aged about 79 years, Rl/o Pardhiwadi, Fathenagar, Hyderabad.

¶21

B. Satyanarayana, S/o Not known, Aged about 69 years, RIo Pardhiwadi, Fathenagar, Hyderabad.

¶22

P. Reddy, S/o Not known, Aged about 59 years, Rl./o Pardhiwadi, Fathenagar, Hyderabad.

¶23

B. G. Lakshma rh, S/o Durgaiah, Aged about 69 years, Rtr 11_1g611tD, Fathenagar,^-l rderabad.

¶24

Daliyan Sing t, S/o Late Alasingh Rao, Aged about 37 1,r:ars, Rl,/o, 11_1B6t1tD, Fathenagar, ivderabad.

¶25

Mahinder, Si I',,/enkat Ram Reddy, Aged about S7 years, R/c 11-.186/1/D, Fathenagar, lyderabad.

¶26

M/s Bliss En; -.rcrises, Having its unit at portion o1 plot lJ:..A_,9, Cooperative industrlal Est ltt:, Ba ra naga r, Hyderabad-37. Rep. by its :rlprietor vipur rrivedi S/o Dheerajli l.

¶27

M/s Delite c( rporation, Having its unit at portion of prot r.r:,A.19, cooperative industrial Est rkr, Balanagar, Hyderabad-37. Rep. by its F)roprietor, Bina Trivedi V'/o \ p _rl Trivedi

¶28

'I 3. Bright Galvar sing Company, Having its unit at pc,rtion ol l)lot No.A_19, Cooperative i rdustrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad_37. Rep by its Proprieto: Pa^.u Patel S/o lv'lastan Patel,: Aged aboul 69 y,lar{;.

¶29

(Respondenr ;.1 to 13 are not necessary parties to this Revision petition)

¶30

...RRs.1 TO 7 AND 11 TO 13 tN t.A.NO.1021l2oli,tN O.p.NO.552/1998

¶31

CRPMP. NO:7 667⁽ rF 2017

¶32

Petition unde {iection 151 CPC praying that in the c,irr;un stances stated in the aff idavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court rna), be pleased to suspend the OrrJer lated 10.04.2017 in t.A.No. 1021 of 20t7' in Op.No. 552 of 1988 passed b,7 tl: Principal District Judge cum Special TriLrunal for Land Grabbing Cases R.l Lt)istrict , at L.B.Nagar , pending disposal of the CRp

¶33

Counsel forthe Peti ioners: SRI T. SUJAN KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for the Res rondents: SRI K. K. WAGHRAy

¶35

The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶36

¶37

t I I 1

¶38

TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.SANTHOSH REDDY}

¶39

C.R.P.No.5934 OF 2017

¶40

ORDT]It

¶41

't lris civil revision petition under Afticle 227 ot' the Constitution of India is directed^{against the orderdated10.04.2019} L.Ci.O.P.No.552 of 1998. on the^{flle olthe PrincipalDistrict Judgc-} curn-special l.ribunal firr t.and Cirabbing^{Cases,RangaReddy} District at L..B.Nagar.

¶42

¶43

l. I hc lcarnccl .ltrdgc through thc impugncd^{oldcr had dircctcd} thc Rcvcnue Divisional Ol'ticer, l3alanagar^{Mandal, RangaReddy} District ro cvict thc^{petitionersand others by demolishing the} strlrcturcs tbr giving elt'ect to^{thc decree passed in t..C.O.P.No.552} ol' 1998 bl putting respondent No.l^{herein in physicalpossession} b1 lbllor.r,ing rhc proccdure^{laid dor'r'nunder Rule l5 of the A.P.} Land Crabbing^{(Prohibition)Rulcs. 1988 (lor short,'the Rules).}

¶44

3 [.earned counscl ibr the^{petitionerssubmits that the Couri} belor.r cornmitted ct'ror^{b1' entertainingI.A.No' 102 I ol 20 I 7 tiled} by respondent No. I herein^{underltule l5 of the Rules andpassed} the irnpugned order dated^{10.04.20I 7 in execution ol the decree in}

¶45

L.G.O.F,.Nc s52 ol I9gg, uhich was cor)ti.ned II) Ci , il z\ppeal Nos.6409 o ,10 l6 and 6.1 I0 of l0l(r by.the Ilon.t,k: Apcx Courr I-earncd co Lnscl furlhcr sr-rbrlits that tlre ,.p. l.i.nd (irabbing (Prohibirion i\cL, 1982 (for shorr, ,the Acr,) was t epealed vide G.O.Ms. \o. l J, Revenuc (Land Matters) Dep: rr rnent, datcd 0lr.06.2016 l y uay of. notillcariorr and in paragral)r l( 5) o1- the notification, pr.ocedurc vras prescribed lor exc,crrrrrn ol rule. iudgment. de rce or order passecl under the At:t. as :1. th: date of repealing ord r and thel shall sland transl_en.ec to rcsf)ect ve Civil Courls ha,,.in 1 .jurisdiction flor. rts execution irr rc rns of the provrsrons of the Code ol Civil procedure. I90g (ltrr sh,rrt. ,the CPC')

¶46

On the o, her hancl. Iearned counsei fbr the r,jsp lndents submits thrrt ( orrrt bclou has not cornntittecl .ln\ c..,.)r rrnd the impugned orde clocs nol sulfbr. lionr any inlirnrirl.. ho.^r.rr..er.. if the Court below fir Js that the respondents ltavc to procccd li cxccution o1- the decrec rs pcr the rcpeai or.dcr of thc (ioi e.r1 tle,tt. the respondents rnz y bc given pennission to inv.oke rhe I,r.or isions prescribed in thr rr:pcal order_

¶47

aI i

¶48

tJndisputedly,^{the StateGovernment rcpealedthe A'P'Land} Grabbing^{(Prohibition) Act. 1982 vide G'O'Ms'No'Il3' Revenue} (t-and Matters) Depaftment'^{dated01 06'2016by way notification} and paragraph^{2(6) of the notificationprescribedthe procedurefor} crccution of^{thc dccreesof the Land Grabbing Courtand the same}

¶49

rcads as under:

¶50

Notwithstanding any^{Rule, Judge, decree or} order o{ any^Court.-

¶51

The Judgment, decree^{or order passed under} the AP Act^{12t1982.which remain unimplementedfor} any reasons, or^{pending before any Courtfor} execution as on^{the date of Repealing Order,shall} stand lransferred^{to respectiveCivil Courtshaving} jurrsdiction for its executlonⁱⁿ terms^{of the provisions} of Code of^{Ctvrl Procedure.1908"}

¶52

Bl thc said^{GO,since procedurc has been prescribedfor} cxecution ol'thc^{declccsas on thc date of repealing order'the} sarnc has to bc^{fblloued in tcrtls of the provisions of the CPC'} The Coun belou^{lailed to take note of the procedure prescribed} consequcnt to^{repealo l' the Actstatcdabove The Courtbelow} ought to have^{rctttrned the application filed under Rule l5 of the} Rules and directed^{the respondentsto proceed for execution of the} decrce as^{pcr the provisions of thc CPC'}

¶53

¶54

I'or r re ftrregoing reasons. I arn ol.thc vicrv tlar rhe 6rclcr o1. thc trial co rr suffe.s lionr infirmity, anri the s.arrc is ria[.it, ro hc set asiclc. I hr t:sltondcnts arc at Iibcrt_\ tu 1.r11y..g1,{ <lt c ' ccttt ion oI tltc dccr.,:e p rssed in I_.G.C.O.p.No.55l ol. Igog in .r., rort ia nc.' rr ith the prov sior s of Orde r XXI CpC. 8. In th rcsult, thc cir.il rcvision l)etitiorr is Itliorr crl, The irrpLrgnr d order date d I0.04.20t7 irr 1.4.\o. It-l o-10 l7 rn I-.G.('.o.D.N ,.]i52 ol I998. o. Lhe liic ol'rhe l)rirr: pa I)istricr .ludgc-c r rr,t-S1 e,:ial -l.r.ibLrnal lirr I-and ( il tlhIr111q r-lisc:.. Jlrltr]lt Rcdd1, I)istrit t at t_.B.Nagar., is hcrcbi sct itsidc. (rrnsr rlLtcnti_r. I.A No.lOill r 1 201 7 srands disnrissed -l'hcrc s,tall b. ro .rr.cJe r. as [o cosls

¶55

9 [)end ing niscellancous petitions, if_arri,. slt rll stan< cioscrl

¶56

sd/- Mo X'd.l3illii,-#flYi1T^,/

//TRUE COPYII

To,

'!-.

SECIION OFFICER