POCHIAH Vs. PADMAVATHY SUBRMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short 'the Act') made in L.G.C.No.28 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioners are the respondents in the above LGC and the 1st respondent is the applicant. The applicant filed the application before the Special Court to declare the respondents as land grabbers in respect of the immovable property in plot No.37 in S.No.844/1 (Old) and S.No.844/23 of Malkajigiri village, Ranga Reddy District and for a consequential direction to the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the said plot and for award of compensation and profits. The case of the applicant to put it briefly is as follows: The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.4868 Revenue Department dated 9.12.1980 assigned an extent of Ac.4.09 guntas in S.No.844/1 situated in Malkajigiri village, Secundearbad taluk in favour of Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Housing Society on payment of market value of Rs.3,00,165.00 at the rate of Rs.15.00 per sq.yard subject to payment of S.D. fees, demarcation charges, S.V. and tree value and land revenue and also subject to usual conditions of assignment agreed to by the assignee and in relaxation of the ban contained in G.O.Ms.No.1409 Revenue dt.19.8.1978. The Collector, Hyderabad was requested to take necessary action accordingly. The Housing Society, having secured allotment as aforesaid, carved out 49 plots out of the assigned land. The applicant being one of the members of the society was allotted plot bearing No.37 admeasuring 228 square yards and the said plot was registered in the name of the applicant under registered sale deed document No.198 dated 23.9.1987 along with layout plan. According to the applicant, her husband was an employee in IDPL and he was transferred to Madras in the year 1984 and since her husband was away from the city, she did not visit the plot allotted to her frequently and she came to know that in the month of December, 1987 when she visited the schedule plot, she found the respondents staying in the said plot. Under those circumstances, the applicant filed the LGC No.28 of 1994 seeking the reliefs as set out supra.

(3.) The application was opposed by the respondents. The case of the respondent is briefly as follows: They were allotted plot No.59 admeasuring 66 square yards and in the said plot they have constructed a house bearing door No.17-119/31 bounded with North by plot No.96, East by plot No.58, South by road, West by plot No.60, and they have nothing to do with plot No.37 and that the allegations made by the applicant are false. On the basis of these pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: