KORUVADA NEGESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.272 of 2015 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

(2.) The second respondent lodged a written report with the police alleging that his grandmother late Pentakota Ramayamma acquired land in the extent of Ac.1.15 at Kapparada, Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam situated in old survey No.17/2 (New Survey No.33/3) through the Document No.1582/1952 registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Visakhapatnam on 24-10-1952 and it was in her possession. Subsequently, his grandmother sold part of the said land to different parties and the land remained only 200 Sq.Yards. After the demise of his grandmother and grandfather, his father Ramu Naidu and his paternal uncle Appala Naidu succeeded ancestral property i.e. 200 Sq.Yards of land. In the said land, his father constructed a thatched house and let out the same to one Koruvada Suryanarayana and his family. Thereafter, the said tenant Suryanarayana and his legal heirs by name K.Nageswara Rao (Elder son), K. Trinadha Rao @ Trinadh (younger son), Ramanamma (Daughter) started claiming right over the property on the pretext that it is assigned land. On witnessing the same, they have filed a suit OS No.1033/2003 before IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam. During trial, the respondents filed forged pattas purported to have been issued by the then Tahasildar as per Board Standing Order 21 as if they were having land in Survey Nos.33/4B, 33/4C and 33/4D, thereby, claimed title, right over the said property, as if they are lawful owners of the property.

(3.) The second respondent filed an application under Right to Information Act for furnishing information based on settlement adangal. The information furnished by the Tahsildar disclosed that no pattas were issued and that those pattas were fake. Thus, the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC and requested the police to take necessary action against this petitioner.