PATIL CHANDRAMOULISWAR REDDY Vs. MADIGE PEDDA DASTHAGIRI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Patil Chandramouliswar Reddy
Madige Pedda Dasthagiri
Click here to view full judgement.
M.Seetharama Murti, J. -
(1.)The unsuccessful respondent in I.A.no.1675 of 2018 in LGOP no.79 of 2017/petitioner in the LGOP filed this appeal under Section 7(A) (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ['the Act', for brevity] assailing the order, dated 07.02.2019, of the learned Judge of the Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, passed in the said I.A.no.1675 of 2018 in the said L.G.O.P.no.79 of 2017.
(2.)We have heard the submissions of Sri Patil Chandramouliswar Reddy, appellant/Party-in-person; and, of Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 13. We have perused the material record.
2.1 The parties in this appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the appeal for convenience and clarity.
(3.)To begin with it is to be noted that the appellant herein filed the above said L.G.O.P.no.79 of 2017 ('LGOP', for brevity) on the file of the Court of the Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act cum-Principal District Court, Kurnool, ['Special Tribunal', for brevity] seeking verbatim the following reliefs:
'(a) To declare that the petitioner is absolute owner of the petition schedule land as described in the petition schedule.
(b) To declare that respondents 1 to 13 as land grabbers of the petition schedule land and for consequential direction to respondents number 1 to 13 to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule land by removing all types of objections that is removing cattle grass and its fencing by R4 and R8 and foundation stones laid by R5 and R8 for construction of houses at the petition schedule land and all other obstacles placed at and over the petition schedule land to show their illegal occupations over the said land immediately.
(c) Direct the respondents 1 to 13 to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- each towards illegal use and occupation and obstructing the petitioner to enjoy the petition schedule land from 01.12.2015 up to the filing of this petition.
(d) Grant such other interior reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper to protect the interest of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Costs of the petition.'
The schedule land as mentioned in the schedule annexed to the LGOP, as is evident from the copy of the same filed with material papers, is verbatim as follows:
"That the petition schedule land is situated at survey number 91 full extent is Acres 6.98 cents. The petitioner is holding Acres 3.49 cents of Thippanur Village of Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District and Sub Registration of Gudur then and now at Kodumur within registration District of Kurnool.
Bounded By East Rastha Survey number 67. West remaining portion of survey number 91 held by Boya Roganna hires. North rastha on survey number 90. South Bodepadu village site.
The old survey number is 91 and sub divided by 91/1 extent Acres 6.93 cents. Survey number 91/2 is Acres 0.05 cents."
3.1 The respondents herein, who are also the respondents in the said LGOP filed the subject interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('Code', for short) requesting to reject the said LGOP filed by the appellant herein. The appellant herein having filed a counter in the said interlocutory application resisted the said application. Nonetheless, on merits and by the order impugned in this appeal, the Special Tribunal allowed the application of the respondents herein and rejected the LGOP filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant is before this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.