Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 231 (AP)

K. Manmohan Reddy v. State of A. P.

2008-03-28

N.V.RAMANA

body2008
ORDER :- The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein own two plots bearing Nos.224 and 224-A admeasuring 355 sq. yards each in Sy.No.51 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and there is a title dispute pending in respect of the land in Sy.No.51 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.6093 and 7013 of 2006, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders dated 8.9.2006 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. Despite existence of the said status quo orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, regularized some portion of the land in the said survey number under the ULC Act in favour of the unofficial respondents, and the Government have also issued G.O. Ms. No.1816 dated 18.10.2005 and G.O. Ms. No.2183 dated 27.12.2005. Thereafter, on the strength of the said G.Os., the unofficial respondents got a layout sanctioned from respondent No. 4-HUDA and respondent Nos.10 and 11 having obtained permission from respondent No.8-GHMC for construction of buildings, is making constructions. The learned Counsel submits that since title dispute with regard to the land in question is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authority under the ULC Act could not have regularized the lands, and the Government could not have issued the aforesaid G.Os., and consequently respondent Nos. 4 and 8 also could not have sanctioned layout and granted building construction permission to the unofficial respondents, and the action of the aforesaid official respondents, in regularizing the lands, issuing G.Os., sanctioning layout and granting building construction permission, is violative of the status quo orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that respondents Nos.10 and 11 in the guise of taking up construction in the land in Sy.Nos. 46 and 53, is trying to make construction in the land in Sy.No.51 in which the petitioners own' plots. He submitted that though there are about 588 individuals who are affected by the impugned actions of the aforesaid officials respondents and the constructions being made by respondent Nos. 10 and 11, only two petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. On 25.2.2008, this Court permitted the Counsel for the petitioner to take out notices to the respondents. The notices having been served, some of the respondent entered their appearance. 10 and 11, only two petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. On 25.2.2008, this Court permitted the Counsel for the petitioner to take out notices to the respondents. The notices having been served, some of the respondent entered their appearance. On 5.3.2008, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.10 and 11 gave an undertaking that his clients will not make or proceed with the constructions for a period of ten days. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on two occasions, to enable the Government Pleader for Assignments, appearing on behalf of the Government and the Revenue Officials to get instructions/file counter. 3. Respondent No.4-HUDA filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on their behalf reiterating the counter averments stated that they had approved the layout presented by respondent Nos.10 and 11 as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, taking into consideration the G.Os., issued by the Government regularizing the lands. He submitted that the Joint Collector, vide letter dated 20.1 0.2007, informed them about the status quo order granted by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, and it is only through this letter, did respondent No.4 come to know about the status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon receipt of the same, respondent No.4 had addressed a letter dated 7.1.2008 to the Government to spell out their stand and they are awaiting the response from the Government. He further submitted that respondent No.4 will take appropriate steps in accordance with: law basing on the stand to be taken by the Government. 4. A counter-affidavit is also filed by respondent Nos. 10 and 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 specifically stated that his clients are not concerned with the land in Sy.No.51 in which the petitioners claim to own plots. He also denied that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 are making any constructions in the land in Sy. No.51. He submitted that by virtue of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.1816, dated 18.10.2005 and G.O. Ms. No2183, dated 27.12.2005, respondent Nos.10 and 11 have become owners of the land in Sy.NosA6 and 53 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and they are concerned only with the said land. He submitted that respondent Nos. He submitted that by virtue of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.1816, dated 18.10.2005 and G.O. Ms. No2183, dated 27.12.2005, respondent Nos.10 and 11 have become owners of the land in Sy.NosA6 and 53 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and they are concerned only with the said land. He submitted that respondent Nos. 10 and lion the basis of the aforesaid G.Os., issued by the Government, got sanctioned the layout from respondent No.4-HUDA, and after obtaining building construction permission from respondent No.8-GHMC, have started constructions. He submitted that the status quo order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.9.2006, will not come in the way of the Government regularizing the land by issuing the aforesaid G.Os., sanctioning of layout by respondent No.4-HUDA and granting of permission by respondent No.5-GHMC since all these acts took place much prior to the passing of the status quo order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted by reason of the conditions imposed in the G.Os., issued by the Government regularizing the lands in Sy.Nos.46 and 53, and respondents Nos.1 0 and 11 having paid huge amounts towards regularization, they have become absolute owners of the land in Sy.Nos.46 and 53, and in fact, they have also got title to the said land. He submitted that even though the G.Os., were issued in the year 2005, the petitioners kept quiet all these days, and filed the writ petition only when respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have taken up construction activity in the land in Sy.Nos.46 and 53, which was regularized in their favour under the above G.Os. He submitted that respondent Nos.10 and 11 being the owners of the land in Sy.Nos.46 and 53, are entitled to make constructions in the said land, and more so when they obtained necessary permission for construction from respondent No.8-GHMC. He submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners being a frivolous one, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Assignments appearing on behalf of the Government and the Revenue Officials, on instructions submitted that the regularization of the lands in Sy. Nos.46 and 53 in favour of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 had taken place much before filing of the S.L.P., and as such, no fault can be found with the action of the Government in regularizing the lands. Nos.46 and 53 in favour of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 had taken place much before filing of the S.L.P., and as such, no fault can be found with the action of the Government in regularizing the lands. He submitted that immediately on coming to know of the status quo orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was brought to the notice of respondent No.4 -HUDA and other authorities, and the Tashildar, Serilingampally Mandal, has also addressed a letter to respondent Nos.10 and 11 to stop constructions in the land. Responding to the query put by the Court as to what steps the Government had taken to implement the order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Government Pleader for Assignments submitted that the matter is under consideration before the Government. 6. Given the complexity of the matter, this Court issued notice to the learned Advocate-General to appear and assist the Court as to how the Government could regularize the land by issuing G.Os., where there is title dispute in respect of the land in question pending, and as to what steps the Government had taken to implement the orders of status quo granted by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. The learned Advocate General having appeared before the Court, requested some time to examine the whole issue in detail. Though he contended that the status quo orders were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, long after the regularization of the lands took place by issuance of the G.Os., he however submitted that irrespective of whether the status quo was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, long after issuance of G.Os., regularizing the land, the fact remains, the same being a judicial order, and the same having been passed by the apex Court, whose orders are the law of the land, submitted has to be implemented in its letter and spirit by all concerned. He submitted the regularization of the land under the ULC Act by issuance of G.Os., will not confer any title to respondent Nos. 10 and 11, in whose favour the land has been regularized under the above G.Os. According to him, there are various departments involved in the issue. He submitted the regularization of the land under the ULC Act by issuance of G.Os., will not confer any title to respondent Nos. 10 and 11, in whose favour the land has been regularized under the above G.Os. According to him, there are various departments involved in the issue. The authority under the ULC Act being an independent authority, the Government has no role to play in the affairs of the authorities constituted under various statutes, much less, the ULC Act, HUDA Act and HMC Act. He, however, submitted since the petitioners are concerned only with two plots in Sy.No.51, their interest can be protected by granting status quo orders in respect of the said extents of land. 7. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate-General, the learned Government Pleader for Assignments, the learned Counsel for respondent No.4-HUDA and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.10 and 11. 8. According to the own admission of the petitioners though they are owners of two plots admeasuring 355 Sq.Yards it is their specific case that they were not given possession, and that the possession of the land is still in the custody of the Government, and that since 1976 they are fighting the litigation. Be that as it may, the petitioners even though contend that respondent Nos.10 and 11 in the guise of making construction in Sy.Nos.46 and 53, are trying to encroach upon their land in Sy.No.51, the fact remains, the same being a disputed question of fact, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Construction of India, and the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the competent civil Court and obtain necessary reliefs. However, for the present, the limited relief that can be granted to the petitioners is to direct respondent Nos. 1 0 and 11 not to make any constructions in the plots owned by the petitioners in Sy.No.51, and more so when it is the specific case of respondent Nos. 1 0 and 11 that they are not concerned with the land in Sy.No.51 and that they are not making any construction in Sy.No.51, in which the petitioners are claiming to own plots. 9. 1 0 and 11 that they are not concerned with the land in Sy.No.51 and that they are not making any construction in Sy.No.51, in which the petitioners are claiming to own plots. 9. Even assuming for a moment that the Government had issued G.Os., regularizing the lands in favour of respondent Nos.10 and 11, much before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted orders of status quo, but the fact remains, the State Government being a party to the S.L.P., before the Supreme Court, and they themselves having preferred one SLP against the orders passed by this Court in CRP, wherein dispute relating tenancy rights is involved, cannot allow the status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to be violated by any of the parties. 10. As some of the persons are said to have withdrawn the S.L.Ps., filed by them, it is not clear as to whether the land covered by the survey numbers in question, are also subject-matter of dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending S.L.Ps. 11. Be that as it may, the Government have to clarify certain issues, such as whether while regularizing the lands in favour of the parties, they can even confer title to the said land, and more so when there is a title dispute in respect of the land regularized is pending, whether the status quo order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, binds all the parties, including those who are not party to the said his, and what steps the Government have taken to implement the status quo order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of a detailed counter, particularly when it is stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No.4HUDA and the learned Government Pleader for Assignments and the learned Counsel for respondent No.4-HUDA that the matter is under consideration before the Government. 12. Hence, while ordering notice before admission, three weeks time is granted to the Government for filing detailed counter as requested by the learned Advocate General. 13. Pending further orders, the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the plots Nos.224 and 224-A of the petitioners admeasuring 355 Sq.yards, each, situated in Sy.No.51 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. List after three weeks.