Allowed

G.Ravi Kumar v. the Special Court Under Ap. Land and 3 Oths

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024WP/33860/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, this High Court set aside the Special Court's order dismissing a land grabbing case. Invoking Article 226, the Court held that the Special Court erred in dismissing the case due to lack of petitioner's land details when reports confirmed encroachment. The matter is remanded to the District Court for a comprehensive order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; order of Special Court dated 27.10.2010 set aside; matter remanded to District Court for comprehensive disposal.

G.Ravi Kumar Vs the Special Court Under Ap. Land and 3 Oths — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴¹³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICELAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:3^{3860 0F 2010}

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.RaviKumar,S/oG.MuraliPurnachanderRao,aged50years'R/o8-67' Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

l.TheSpecialCourtUnderA'P.LandGrabbing(Prohibition)Act,Hyderabad. Rep. bY its Registrar.

¶12

Zilla Parishad^{High School, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.rep by its} Head [Vlaster

¶13

The District Educational^{Officer, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶14

4.TheChiefExecutiveOfficer,ZillaParishad,RangaReddyDistrict'

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueawritofCertiorarioranyotherappropriatewritorwrits'orderor direction to call^{for the records pertainingto judgmentdl 27 -10-2010 passedby} first respondent^{in L.G.C.No.1 4 of 2006 and quash the same by declaring it to be} illegal, arbitrary^{and unconstitutional,by allowingthe L G'C No14 /2006filedby} petitioner before the first^{respondent Award costs'}

¶17

l.A. NO:1 oF^{2010(wPMP. NO:428850F 2010)}

¶18

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} issue interim directions^{to the 2nd respondent not to changethe-,nature'of}

¶19

¶20

¶21

schedule property in L.G.C.No.14|2OOG on the file of the First respondent, pending disposal of WP. No. of 201O.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SURYA SATISH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR EDUCATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.RAGHAVENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

-,,.:,;!r_:;P
'.,,"
,t'

¶27

HON'BI^F SRIJUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI} AND

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI^{NARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶29

W.P.No.33860 of 2010

¶30

ORDER: /'ir I lon'ble -fi lr.;tie 'lbhinaad^{Ktnar.f hatili)}

¶31

111 ,\ggrieved by the order dated^{27.10.2010passed} LGC No.1'l of 2006 bv^{the SpecialCourtunder A'P' Lanci}

¶32

Clrabbing (Prohibition) :\ct,^{the present writ petitionis filcd'}

¶33

2 Heard Sri^'l'.Sun'a Satish,, lcarned^{counsel appearingfor} the pctitiofler, learned Standing^{Counsel appearing frrl} respondent No.2 and learned^{Government Plcaderfor}

¶34

Education appearing lor^{respondent Nos.3and 4.}

¶35

.) it is the case of the petitioner^{that he is the absolutc}

¶36

owner and possessor of an^{extent of Ac.5.03 guntas oI land}

¶37

1n varlous survey numbers situated^{at I{ushaiguda, I{apra}

¶38

N{unicipality, I{eesara N{andal.^{When the 2"d respondent-} Zrlla llarishad tligl'r School^{has encroached the land ot the}

¶39

petitioncr situated in^{S,v.No.368/1,he has fiied LGC No.1-i}

¶40

¶41

¶42

ot 2006 against tl-re 2''d respondcnt and others. The Special Court has cailecl tor a report from the N{andal Revenue C) [ficcr and also Fronr the Commissioner to asccrtain as to s,l.rether respondcr-rr Nos.2 to 4 have grabbed the land of the petitiofler or not. The N,Iandal Revenue Officer has submitted a rep()rt stating that the 2nd respondent has encroachcd tl-re land ro an extent of 31 guntas in Sv.No.368/l ancl no porrion of land in Sy.No.368/1 \ras allotted to the 2"r respondent. Further, on inspection, the Commissioner/L-rspccror o[ Survey has submitted a report stating that rhc 2.d respondenr has encroached 31 to 35 guotas of land in Sv.No.3(rtl/i.^'Ihough the Special Court iras categoricallr- gir.en a trnding that the 2"d respondent has encroached 31 to 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.368/1, horvever, it declined r() grant anv relief to the petitioner and dismisscd the LGC rvithout appreciating any of the

¶43

contcntions raised by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petirion.

¶44

---7
,/
,/

¶45

-1. Learned^{counselaPPeatLnsfor the Petidonerha(l} cofltended^{that the SpecialCourthas dismissed the l'G('} preferred^{bv the petitioneronlv on the groundthat thc} petidoner^{could not furnish the details of his iand holdings} in vaflous^{stlfve'numbers. Vihen the Special Coutthas} come to^{the conciusiofl that the 2"d respondent has} encroached^{the land in Sy.No.368 lt, the Specialcourt ought} to havc^{allorved the LGC instead of dismissing the same'} Therefore,^{appropriate orders be passed in the writ perition} by setting^{asidethe order passed by the SpecialCourt and} allow the^{writ pefltron anrl furtherdeclarethat the 2"']} respondent^{is a land gtabber or in the alternative' direct} respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 to acquirethe land by invokingthe} land acquisition Proceedings'

¶46

respondent^{Nos.3 and 4 had contended that the petinoner'} could^{not furnish details of his land hoidings in the said}

¶47

¶48

¶49

su11.c\r rlumbers and in the abscnce of the same, the Special Court u-as not in a position to adjudicate the^{case. The 2"d} rcspondent w2s allottcd ,.\c.0-1.04 guntas of land for construction of a school, and the 2 nd respondent has constl'ucted the scl-rool rvat back 1n 1992 itself and the petitioner has approached the Special Court in^2006.Though thc petitioner was aware that the school was constructed^rvav back in 1992, he has not taken an1, steps to pursue his remedies cxcept friing LGC CA SC Tl-rerefore, tl-rc Special Court has rightlv dismissed tl.rc I-GC and there are no merits in the rvrit petition and thc salne is liablc to be dismissed. 6. Having consideted the rir.al submissions made by the learned counscl on cither side. this Court is o[ the view thar rvhen the Special Court has given a finding that rhe 2"d respondent has cncroached the land to an extent of 31 to 35 suntas in Sv.No.368 ll, the Special Court ought not to have dismissed the LGC only on thc ground that the petitioner

.-."--,:i.
f
,,/

couid not furnish^{the de tails ofland holdingsin} Sy.No.368/1.^{Admrttedl.v, there is clariry in the order passed} by the Special Court.^{In the rePorts submittedby the} Mandal Revenue^{C) t-Frcer and Commissioner/Inspectoro[} Survey, it^{was stated that the total land holdingsin} Sy.No.368/1^{is Ac.7-11 guntas and that extent of land is} being held by^{the pctitioner,the Special Court ought to have} dealt rvith that^{aspect.1'hcrefore,, the order passedby thc} Special Court^{is liablc to be set asidc'}

¶54

Accordingly, the^{Writ Petition is allorved by setting} aside the order^{dated 21.10.2010 passed in LGC No'14 oi} 2006. Since the^{Speciai Courts havebeen abolishedin thc} State of Telangana,^{ali the pending casesbeforethe Special} Court are transferred^{tothe competent DistrictCourt} concerned,^{and the mattcris remanded to the District Court} concerned^{so as to enabie the District Courtconcerned to} pass a comprehensive^{orderby duly taking into consideration}

the rcports submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and rhe Commissioner/Inspector of Sur-ve1,. Since the marter pertains ro rhe .ear 2006, the District Courr concerned is directed to decide rhe case as expeditiouslv as possible.^-I.he l)istrict Courr concerned shail pass orders without being influenced bv any o[ the obse6.atrons made by this Court in this order. No cos rs.

¶59

Miscellaneous peritions, if anv, pending shall stancl closed.

¶60

That Rule Nisi has made^{Absoluteas above witness} The Hon'ble SRI ALOK ARADHE,^{The ChiefJustice on this Tuesday' the Fifth} Day of November, Two^{Thousand and Twenty Four.} t i SD/-A.V.S. PR46AD \

¶61

SD/-A.V.S. PR46AD ASSISTANT REGIStrRAR N/ //TRUE COPYII \M SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

The Registrar, Special Court^{Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act'} Hyderabad.

¶64

The Head Master, Zilla^{ParishadHigh School, Kushaiguda,Ranga Reddy} District.

¶65

The District Educational^{Officer, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶66

The Chief Executive Officer,^{Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶67

One CC to SRI T.SURYA^{SATISH, Advocate} [OPUCI

¶68

One CC to SRI P.RAGHAVENDER^{REDDY,SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT} loPUcI

¶69

Two CCs to GP FOR^{EDUCATION, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶70

B. Two CD Copies

BSR -6BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0511112024

ORDER

-i'.1F-.jTAr
,.<br>? Q...
t
3 -) 10 l]EI 2024 I
I
{'
t t)
PnTCP,

¶76

WP.No.33860 of 2010

¶77

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

l
t
\n\ il1

G.Ravi Kumar v. the Special Court Under Ap. Land and 3 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ravi Kumar v. the Special Court Under Ap. Land and 3 Oths

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

D. Siva Reddy Vs Union of India

Smt. v.Suneetha Rani Vs M.R.Prakash and 3 Oths

M/s Rama Krishna Constructions Vs Union of India and 4Others

The State of Telangana, Vs Ch Venugopal

Dr.Shoukat Hayat Khan, Hyderabad and 3 Others Vs the Spl.Court of Land Grabbing, Hyderabad and Another

Banoth Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana