P NEELAKANTESWARAMMA Vs. UPPARI MUTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an rder dated 11-7-1997 we had disposed of V.P.Nos.4991 and 4026 of 1990 setting aside the order passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Special Court), in L.G.C.NO.32/89, dated 5-3-1990 which was filed by Smt. P. Neelakanteswaramma and four others namely Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No.4991/90 against the Petitioners 1 to 10 L.G.C.No.32/90 one SnN.Srinivasa Rao, petitioner in W.P.No.4026/90, 11th Respondent in W.P.No.4991/90 and five other persons namely T. Syam Prasad Reddy, G. Ramesh, V.K.V. Prasad Rao, T. Rama Murthy and K. R. Bhagyanagar Co-operative housing Society Ltd, Hyderabad, in respect of land admeasuring 8866 Sq.yards situated in Yousifguda village, Hyderabad, alleging that the above persons are intended to grab the schedule land which is under the occupation of Smt. Neelakanteswaramma and others. The said land Grabbing Case was contested by both the parlies. The respondents in the said LGC No.32/89 denied the claim of Smt. Neelakanteswaramma. The parties were led in evidence both oral and documentary. On behalf of the applicants one Y. Venkateswara Rao was examined as PW1 and 47 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A47. On respondents' side namely petitioners in W.P.No.4991/90 and W.P. No.4026/90 six persons were examined as RWs.1 to 6. Smt Uppari Muthamma, the first petitioner in W.P.No.4991/90 was examined as RW1 and N. Srinivasa Rao, petitioner in W.P.No. 4026/90 was examined as RW4 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.Bl to B20 on behalf of the respondents. After considering the evidence, the Special Court found that the Respondents 1 to 17 entered into conspiracy to grab the schedule property from the applicants and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they brought into existence various General Powers of Attorney, agreements of sale and sale deeds. The 11th respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.4026/90) executed sale deeds in favour of Respondents 12 to 16, but they did not get possession of the land, whereas the applicants are still in possession of the schedule property. Thus, observing the Special Court allowed the application and ordered that all the respondents namely petitioners in both the writ petitions are liable for punishment under Sections 4 and 5 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Aggrieved by the said order two writ petitions were filed. W.P.No.4026/90 was filed by N. Srinivasa Rao who was 11th respondent in LGC No.32/89 whereas W.P.No.4991/90 was filed by the Respondents 1 to 10 in the said LGC case. Since the facts and questions involved in both the writ petitions were common and identical they were heard together. On completion of arguments both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. During the pendency of the proceedings of WP No.4991/90, Petitioners 3 and 7 died and as such their legal representatives were brought on record as Petitioners 11 to 18 and 19 to 21 respectively as per the orders of this Court in WPMP.No.9440/97 dated 17-4-1997, and Respondents 7 to 16 were impleaded as party respondents as per the orders of this Court in WPMPNo.11515/97, dated 30-4-1997.

(2.) After hearing the Counsel appeareing for different parties and considering the entire material that was made available before us, we allowed both the writ petitions and set aside the order of the Special Court passed in LGCNo.32/89,dated 5-3-1990. On 7-8-1997, Respondents 2 to 6 filed review petition seeking to review our order for the grounds urged therein. Subsequently on 4-9-1997, they filed another application urging they may be permitted to raise additional ground as Ground No.8, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.4026/90 filed an application WPMP No.24605/97 on 18-8-1997 requesting the Court to modify or clarify our order with regard to the observations made at PageNos.50 and 51 to the effect that the said observations are not binding on him and inoperative as against his rights and interest in the schedule property so as to enable him to work out his civil rights in Civil Court, if necessary. The petitioners in WP.Np.4991/90 filed their counter both to the review petition and the recalling application filed by the petitioner in WP No.4026/90.

(3.) Both the Review Petition and the Recalling Application were heard together. How far the review petition and the recalling application are relevant and whether they deserve to be accepted or not, a few facts as urged are necessary to be referred which are as follows: The land in question is covered by S.Nos.65 to 74 of Yousifguda village belonging to one Kaneez Fatima Begum. Uppari Ramaiah was her tenant who was the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of Respondents 2 to 10 in WP.No.4991/91. Out of these survey numbers, Uppari Ramaiah purchased Ac. 14.06 guntas of land from Kaneez Fatima Begum under a sale deed dated 1-5-1961 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000.00. He obtained a certificate under Section 38E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the ' Tenancy Act 1950 ') from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West Prior to the said transaction dated 1-5-61 tenant Uppari Ramaiah sold an extent of 20,086 Sq.Yards from out of the total extent of Ac. 14.06 guntas to One Mir Riyasat AH under a sale deed dated 8-2-1961. The said Ryasat Ali in turn had sold 8,866 Sq.yards to Smt P. Neelakanteswaramma, applicant No.1 in LGC.32/89 and to one Chandra Ramalingaiah under a sale deed dated 21 -11 -1961. The said Ramalingaiah died and his share in the land was devolved on his legal heirs namely Applicants 2 to 5 in LGCNo.32/89. Smt Neelakanteswaramma and the wife of Chandra Ramalingaiah who was applicant No.2 in LGC No.32/89 entered into an agreement of sale with Bhagyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society. But in view of G.O.Rt.No.3591, dated 1-12-1975 and G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 17-1-1976, they could not have executed the sale deeds in favour of the said Housing Society even assuming that they had obtained exemption from alienation of the land under Section 7(2) of A.P. Vacant Lands in Urban Area (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972. The applicant also filed an application under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which is pending before the Government. It is contended that the said application for exemption is also the subject matter of the Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court wherein Bhagyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society is a party.