EDU SHANKARAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None is present on behalf of the petitioner today.

(2.) Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel states that he is appearing for the very same party viz., Edu Shankaraiah, in PIL No.220 of 2105 and that he has expired. This explains the absence of the petitioner in W.P.No.17664 of 2013.

(3.) Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.5/Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District states that aggrieved by the interim order dated 21.06.2013, I.A.No.1 of 2016 (WVMP.No.690 of 2016) was filed wherein, it has been explained how the petitioner had tried to misuse the process of law by filing the captioned writ petition, after having encroached on tank property. He alludes to the averments made in the vacate stay application wherein, it has been averred that the writ petitioner was found to have encroached upon/grabbed tank bed land to an extent of Acs.7.16 guntas in Sy.No.62/1 in Block-E, Ward No.264, Bandlaguda. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar Mandal had filed L.G.C.No.25 of 1988 against the petitioner alleging that he is a land grabber and praying for his eviction. Vide judgment dated 15.12.1997, the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had conducted an elaborate trial and declared the petitioner as a land grabber and had permitted the revenue authorities to take over possession of the subject land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18345 of 1998. Prior to that, he had also filed W.P.No.27803 of 1997 questioning the orders passed in respect of the compensation awarded to the Government for illegal occupation of Government land. Vide order dated 02.07.2001 passed in W.P.No.27803 of 1997, the High Court had confirmed the orders passed by the Special Court declaring the petitioner as a land grabber. As regards award of compensation, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Special Court for fresh determination. Not satisfied by the judgment dated 02.07.2001, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, registered as SLP.No.16335-16336 of 2001, which was dismissed with an observation that if he proposed to establish his title, then he could do so by filing a civil suit.