ORDER:- 1. Strange it may sound, but nevertheless it is true; a retired, Army officer masquerades himself as the lawful owner of property admeasuring Ac.18.37 guntas in Sy.No.1009 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and tries to use this Court to protect his so-called possession of the said property. When his bluff is called, he seeks to withdraw the Writ Petitions. 2. According to the petitioner, one Nawab Mir Fazileth Hussain was the pattadar of Ac.672.14 guntas of land in Sy.No.1009 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, that out of the said land the respondent has acquired an extent of Ac.625.00 for construction of houses and paid compensation to the pattadar, that further extent of Ac.5.05 guntas of land was stated to have been acquired for the purpose of laying Manjeera pipelines and that out of the remaining extent of Ac.42.09 guntas, third parties have encroached an extent of Ac.18.37 guntas. It is his further pleaded case that as the original owner was unable to protect his land due to old age, he executed a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) in his favour on 10.02.1986 and also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.12.1988, whereunder possession of Ac.36.00 was delivered to him by receiving consideration. The petitioner is stated to have submitted representation dated 29.01.2001 and later has filed Writ Petition No.2938 of 2001 and obtained interim direction to the respondent to consider his representation. The petitioner thereafter has withdrawn the Writ Petition by reporting that the cause has become infructuous. A few months after dismissal of the Writ Petition, he has again embarked upon initiating a fresh round of litigation by filing the present Writ Petition. He was able to persuade this Court to grant interim direction to the respondent not to dispossess him from the land admeasuring Ac.18.37 guntas without following due process of law. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, he has denied the averment that the respondent has acquired only Ac.625.00. He has stated that the respondent has acquired Ac.1259.04½ guntas of land in the year 1968 and paid compensation to the land owners in terms of Award No.2, dated 10.06.1968. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, he has denied the averment that the respondent has acquired only Ac.625.00. He has stated that the respondent has acquired Ac.1259.04½ guntas of land in the year 1968 and paid compensation to the land owners in terms of Award No.2, dated 10.06.1968. With reference to Sy.No.1009, it is stated that the total extent of land in the said survey number is Ac.666.25 guntas, that out of the said land, an extent of Ac.5.21 guntas was acquired for the purpose of laying Manjeera pipelines and the remaining extent of Ac.661.04 guntas was acquired and is in possession of the respondent Board and that the legal representatives of late Nawab Rais Yar Jung @ Sri Nawab Fazeelat Hussain Khan, Sri Nawab Mujtaba Hussain Khan etc., have jointly filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the lands in Sy.Nos.1009 and 1043 to 1065 for an extent of Ac.1104.26 guntas which includes Ac.661.04 guntas in Sy.No.1009 and that the respondent has taken possession of the entire land of Ac.1259.04 ½ guntas in pursuance of award dated 10.06.1968 on 24.06.1968. It is further stated that after taking possession of the land, the respondent has taken up several developmental activities by constructing houses etc. It is specifically alleged that the irrevocable GPA dated 10.02.1986 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.12.1988 were created, concocted and fabricated documents and even assuming that these documents are genuine, no rights came to be vested in the petitioner, as the entire land in Sy.No.1009, except to the extent of Ac.05.21 guntas, was acquired for the purpose of housing board and the said extent of Ac.05.21 guntas of land was acquired for laying Manjeera pipelines. 4. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter affidavit. 5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to state as to the manner of right of the petitioner over the above extent of land and the basis for his assertion that only an extent of Ac.625.00 guntas in Sy.No.1009 was acquired. The learned counsel fairly conceded that no such basis is shown by the petitioner and requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. But, having regard to the deplorable conduct of the petitioner in abusing the process of this Court, the request was declined. 6. The learned counsel fairly conceded that no such basis is shown by the petitioner and requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. But, having regard to the deplorable conduct of the petitioner in abusing the process of this Court, the request was declined. 6. The petitioner failed to file any document in support of his assertion that only an extent of Ac.625.00 guntas was acquired by the respondent and that the balance land remained with Nawab Mir Fazileth Hussain. Interestingly, the petitioner is seeking to lay claim over the property in question on the basis of the purported irrevocable GPA and also the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.12.1988. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is fighting for the cause of the original owner in his capacity as the power of attorney. Therefore, his right, if any, requires to be examined with reference to the so-called Memorandum of Understanding. A perusal of the contents of the said Memorandum of Understanding would reveal that the first party, namely; Nawab Mir Fazileth Hussain has declared that the schedule property is free from all kinds of encumbrances either Government or private and the same was executed for full consideration of Rs.5,41,875/- and physical possession of the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner, being a retired Army Officer, cannot be imputed with the ignorance that any immovable property worth above Rs.100/- requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and that any document, which purports to convey the title in such property is not valid without registration and payment of proper stamp duty in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be expected to assert his title or ownership over the vast extent of Ac.42.09 guntas of land without such registration and payment of stamp duty. In the face of the specific averment contained in the counter affidavit that the entire extent of Ac.661.04 guntas in Sy.No.1009 was acquired for the housing board leaving Ac.05.21 guntas for laying Manjeera pipelines, the burden lies on the petitioner that the land of Ac.42.09 guntas does not form part of the acquired land. The petitioner, being a retired Army Officer, is presumed to be aware of this acquisition. The petitioner, being a retired Army Officer, is presumed to be aware of this acquisition. But, in spite of the same, he resorted to the act of bringing a document into existence to make a fraudulent claim over the acquired property. Without stopping at that, he tried to abuse the process of this Court by filing repeated Writ Petitions. The interim order granted by this Court on 30.12.2008 is in force till now. It is a matter of deep regret that the petitioner, who served Indian Army as Captain, should indulge in these shady dealings to defraud the State by setting up false claims. Such attempts of these unscrupulous elements need to be put down with heavy hand. 7. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition, which is a sheer abuse of process of law and Court, is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). The respondent is entitled to execute the cost, if the petitioner fails to pay the same within a period of four weeks from today. 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted on 30.12.2008 is vacated and WPMP.No.37608 of 2008 and WVMP.No.1100 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous.