HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21760 of 2010 DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Singadasari Rajendra Kumar @ Raju, Rep. by GPA holder, N.Venkata Ramana Reddy ….Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Additional Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21760 of 2010
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 and learned Counsel for Respondents 8 and 9.
The case of the petitioner is that his grandfather and another were the joint protected tenants of the land in Sy.Nos.68/1, 68/2, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After demise of his grandfather, his father and himself came into the possession of the land and tenancy appeal No.L/6039/80 was pending at that point of time. During the life time of his grandfather, one T.Srihari Rao filed an objection petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad for cancellation of 38-E Certificate issued in favour of the tenants. Though the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector held in favour of the objectors, this Court in civil Revision Petition No.7381 of 1979, dated 13.3.1980 set aside those orders and remanded the matter to the revenue authorities and the case is pending as of today. While so, the legal heirs of the original protected tenants executed a GPA in favour of one S.Dhanunjay, S/o S.P. Naidu and it was later on cancelled. The petitioner claims that he was not the executant of the said GPA and all the transactions took place behind his back. While so, the GPA holder got approved the layout by the Gram panchayat on the said land along with other adjacent lands on 19.07.1990. The petitioner submitted objection petition before the second respondent on 06.05.2010 seeking the authorities not to give any proceedings for regularization of the plots in the subject land. However, the second respondent issued order regularizing the plots and approval of the layout. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are relating to the alleged right of the petitioner over the disputed land and there is dispute between the petitioner and the other private parties, to which he (the second respondent) is not concerned. The second respondent further stated that one S.Dhananjaya Rao and S.Kamala made an application for regularization of plots in Sy.Nos.61,62,64,65,68/1,68/2,69,69/1,70,70/1,71,72,72/1,85,85/1,86,94,120 to 126 of Ranga Reddy District and after scrutinizing the applications, they passed regularization orders subject to certain conditions. Condition No.5 of the said conditions stipulates that the regularization orders shall not be used as proof of any title of the land. Condition Nos. 2,4, 5 and 10 thereof reads as under:
“Condition No.2: The owners/applicants are solely responsible for any misrepresentation with regard to ownership title, Urban land Ceiling clearance etc. The owners/applicants are responsible for any damage claimed by anyone on account of regularization of the above layout/plot.
Condition No.4: The regularization of plot does not confer ownership on the applicant or alter the ownership of the land.
Condition No. 5: The regularization orders shall not be used as proof of any title of the land.
Condition No.10:That in case of any disputes litigations arise at the time of future regarding the ownership of the land, the applicant shall be responsible for the settlement of the same and the HMDA or its employees shall not be a party to any such disputes/litigations.”
The second respondent considered the said applications for regularization of plots under G.O.Ms.No.902, dated 31.12.2007 and orders were passed on 22.11.2010 regularizing plots strictly in terms of the said GO. The second respondent is not competent to decide the rival title of the objectors and that the petitioner can approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of grievance.
In view of the stand taken by the second respondent, the orders of regularization does not confer any title on the persons in whose favour regularization orders were issued. The remedy of the petitioner is left open. A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reveals a dispute with regard to title to the land in between the petitioner and others and those disputes cannot be decided by the second respondent or any other official respondents in the present Writ petition. The only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to issuance of regularization orders in respect of the disputed land. If that be so, the petitioner can take appropriate proceedings in the competent Civil Court or by filing appeal against those orders of regularization before the Committee constituted for the said purpose. Giving such liberty to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.
---------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2014.
Msnro