B. CHANDRAMOULI Vs. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged Annexure-E issued by 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Anekal which is stated to be pursuant to proceeding in Nos. LRF/HTC/2848/75-76 and LRF/HTC/1029/75-76, insofar as Sy. No. 5 measuring 31 guntas at Gulimangala Village, Anekal Taluk is concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Krishnamurthy i.e., the petitioner's father was the owner of the land in Sy. No. 5 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas; that the father of respondents 1 to 4-Sri Nanjareddy had filed Form 7 in respect of Sy. No. 5 to an extent of 31 guntas; that proceedings in Nos. LRF/HTC/2848 and 1029/75-76 is stated to have taken place but the impugned Form 10 has been issued without either the said Nanjareddy having filed Form 7 nor any order having been passed on that application and therefore, it is contended that the issuance of Form 10 is not supported by an order of the Land Tribunal and hence fraudulent. It is under the aforesaid premise that the petitioner has sought quashing of Form 10, a copy of which is at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

(2.) Statement of objections have been filed to the writ petitions by respondent 1 contending that petitioner's father late Sri Nanjareddy had filed Form 7 in respect of the land in question and that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights to an extent of 31 guntas in the said survey number i.e. on the basis of the fact that Nanjareddy was in occupation of the land in question and that his name was entered in the revenue records including the RTCs right from the year 1968-1969 onwards. That fact has been mentioned in the depositions with regard to proceeding in No. LRF/HTC/1029/75-76; that evidence has not been contradicted by the petitioner that No. LRF/HTC/1029/75-76 was in respect of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 41 and 4. This Court has also taken note of the contentions with regard to the grant of 31 guntas in Sy. No. 5 to late Nanjareddy. Therefore, placing reliance on various documents, respondent 1 has sought dismissal of the writ petitions.

(3.) The State has also filed objections on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.