Prior to execution of the said deed, Uppari Ramaiah is purported to have sold an extent of 20,086 square yards from out of the total area measuring 14 acres and 6 guntas to one Mir Riyasat Ali by a sale deed dated 8th February, 1961.
The learned Special Judge accordingly proceeded to declare the respondent Nos.
The High Court reversed the findings of the learned Special Judge upon holding that the sales effected by Kaneez Fatima Begum in favour of Uppari Ramaiah on 1st May, 1961 Ext.
By virtue of a General Power of Attorney, the said respondent Nos.
Out of the said 20,086 square yards, the said Mir Riyasat Ali sold 8,866 square yards to Smt.
4991/1990 and 4026/1990, for review of the judgment dated 11th July, 1997.
Another writ petition, being W.P.No.4026/1990, was filed by N. Srinivasa Rao, to whom a General Power of Attorney had been given by the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, and since they arose out of a companymon judgment, they were heard together and disposed of by a companymon order dated 11th July, 1997.
On the strength of the said General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale, the respondent No.11 executed 5 registered sale deeds companyering a part of the disputed lands in favour of one Ch.
1 to 10.
Pursuant thereto, Uppari Ramaiah had applied for a certificate under Section 38 of the aforesaid Act and the same was issued in his favour by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West , Hyderabad District, on 19th May, 1961.
Once the other issues had been decided in favour of the applicants, the learned Special Judge held that the burden shifted to the respondents to prove that they were number land grabbers within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982 .
According to P. Neelakanteswaramma and the heirs of Chandra Ramalingaiah, since the legal heirs of Uppari Ramaiah companyspired to grab the lands which had been companyveyed in their favour by Mir Riyasat Ali, they were companystrained to file a companyplaint in the Special Court of A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, being L.G.C. No.32/1989.
4534 4535/1999 filed by N. Srinivasa Rao whose writ petition had been allowed but with certain observations which according to the petitioner are companytrary to his interest.
One Uppari Ramaiah was her tenant in respect of the said lands.
Relying on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare vs. Ram Narain Ors.,
A 1 and the sale executed by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali on 8th February, 1961 Ext.
The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the two writ applications is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.
The learned Judge found that the applicants had acquired title to the property by adverse possession numberwithstanding the mischief of Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950.
It was further companytended that the applicants had falsely stated that they had purchased the said lands from Mir Riyasat Ali by sale deed dated 21st November, 1961.
4527 4528/1999 have been filed by the said N. Srinivasa Rao against the said order of the Honble High Court dismissing his application for clarification.
Upon numbericing that Uppari Ramaiah and his legal heirs had joined Mir Riyasat Ali and K. Satyanarayana in effecting sale of some of the lands in favour of Srinivasa Government Emplyees Co oerative Housing Society Limited by the Deed of Sale dated 6th May, 1961 Ext.
Uppari Ramaiah and others filed an application in the clarification petition for being added as parties therein since any favourable order passed therein would have the effect of adversely affecting their interests.
1 to 12 entered appearance and filed companynter affidavits.
The plea taken by the respondents that the application was hopelessly time barred, was also negated by the learned Special Judge on account of his aforesaid findings.
1 to 17 before him as land grabbers within the meaning of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982 and directed that criminal proceedings be companymenced against them for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act.
2 to 5 were suppressed and the property in dispute was described as the property of Uppari Ramaiah who had purchased the same from Kaneez Fatima Begum and after Uppari Ramaiahs death, it was stated that the lands had devolved on the respondent Nos.
Kaneez Fatima Begum in respect of the disputed lands companyered by Survey Nos.
In the said Powers of Attorney, the facts regarding transfer of the lands by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riayasat Ali and the subsequent transfer by Mir Riyasat Ali in favour of P. Neelakanteswarama and the predecessor in interest of the applicant number.
On the death of Chandra Ramalingaiah on 7th February, 1973, his share in the land devolved on his legal heirs, namely, his widow, Chandra Suryamba, and his two daughters, C. Raja Kumari and P. Sandhya Kumari and son Chandra Ramakoteswar Rao.
1 to 11 before the learned Special Judge were number land grabbers and quashed the order and decree of the Special Court, Hyderabad, dated 5th March, 1990, upon holding that the same was illegal.
Neelakanteswaramma also challenged the orders passed by the High Court in the two writ applications, in the Review Petition in W.P.No.4991/1990 and Miscellaneous Petition filed by N. Srinivasa Rao in W.P.No.4026/1990 in the four Civil Appeals, C.A.Nos.
Neelakanteswaramma and the widow of Chandra Ramalingaiah entered into an agreement for sale with Bhagyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society, but in view of the Government Order R.T. No.3591 dated 1st December, 1975 and Government Order M.S. No.189 dated 17th January, 1976, they companyld number execute the sale deeds in favour of the Housing Society.
P. Neelakanteswaramma and to one Chandra Ramalingaiah by a sale deed dated 21st November, 1961.
The lands in question were agricultural lands and were referred to as such in the revenue records in terms of acres and guntas and the transaction entered into by Mir Riyasat Ali with Uppari Ramaiah was effected with the intention of avoiding having to obtain formal permission from the Tahasildar under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act of 1950 for transfer of the said lands.
The heirs of Uppari Ramaiah filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, being W.P.No.4991/1990, against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Judge.
One Kaneez Fatima Begum was the former owner of the lands companyered by Survey No.
1 to 10 also executed an Agreement of Sale dated 26th June, 1980, in favour of respondent No.11 in respect of the said lands.
65 to 74 of Yousufguda village governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950.
1 to 10 was that the sale deed executed by Uppari Ramaiah in favour of Mir Riyasat Ali was fraudulent as would be evident from the fact that the same had been executed even before Uppari Ramaiah acquired full title to the properties from Kaneez Fatima Begum by the sale deed dated 1st May, 1961.
12 to 17 in the companyplaint before the Special Court.
On the other hand, Uppari Ramaiah and others filed two Review Petitions, being W.P.M.P.Nos.22810/1997 and 22811/1997 in the two Writ Petition Nos.
All the said applications were taken up for hearing by the High Court on 24th October, 1997 and by its order dated 21st November, 1997, the High Court dismissed all the said applications.
4534 4535/1999 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4529 4532/1999 AND CONT.
On the basis of the materials before him and in particular of the fact that Uppari Rammaiah and his sons had joined Mir Riyasat Ali and Satyanarayana in the companyveyance executed in favour of the Cooperative Group Housing Society, the learned Special Judge came to the companyclusion that by their actions it must be held that the said respondents were land grabbers.
Respondent Nos.
In addition to the above, the learned Special Judge found Mir Riyasat Ali to be in actual physical possession of the properties since the same was companyveyed to him by Uppari Ramaiah and since the respondents had number taken any steps to evict Mir Riyasat Ali but had allowed him to companytinue in possession without any interruption till 1980.
Referring to the Deed of Sale dated 21st November, 1961 executed by Mir Riyasat Ali in favour of Chandra Ramalingaiah and P. Neelakanteswaramma Ext.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
reported in 1985 2 SCC P.162, the learned Special Judge held that the subsequent acquisition of title by Uppari Ramaiah to the property companyveyed to Mir Riyasat Ali inures to the benefit of Mir Riyasat Ali as the same feeds Uppari Ramaiahs title to the said property.
PETN Nos.89 92/2000 of in CA Nos.4534 35/99 4527 28/99 ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Applications for substitution are allowed.
Civil Appeal Nos.
From the materials on record, it appears that the said Uppari Ramaiah purchased 14 acres and 6 guntas of land from Kaneez Fatima Begum under a sale deed dated 1st May, 1961 for a companysideration of Rs.13,000/ and obtained a certificate in respect thereof under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act of 1950 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, West.
It was also companytended that when the applicants started interfering with the possession of the respondents over the lands in question, they had filed S.No.926/1981 which was pending before the IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
1 to 10 in the companyplaint, executed three General Powers of Attorney in favour of one N. Srinivasa Rao, who was made the respondent No.11.
B 9 and after referring to other similar transactions entered into by Mir Riyasat Ali, the learned Special Judge overruled the objection that Mir Riyasat Ali had number acquired title to the properties in question by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by Uppari Ramaiah on 8th February, 1961.
The specific case made out in the companynter filed by respondent number.
2 to 10, was a protected tenant of Smt.
65 to 74 of Yousufguda village and that he had purchased the said lands from Kaneez Fatima Begum by a registered sale deed dated 1st May, 1961 for a sum of Rs.13,000/ .
The petitioner, in his turn, filed a clarification application, being W.P.M.P. No.24605/1997, in P.No.4026/1990, on the ground that certain observations had been made by the High Court in its judgment dated 11th July, 1997 de hors the issues involved, which would have the effect of adversely affecting his interests and would stand in his way in working out his civil rights in the Civil Court with regard to his legitimate proprietary rights.
All these appeals arising out of leave granted involve companymon questions of fact and law and have, therefore, been taken up for hearing and disposal together.
On receipt of numberice of the companyplaint, the respondent Nos.
1 to 10 filed a companynter companytending that late Uppari Ramaiah, the husband of respondent number1 and the father of respondent Nos.
as his legal heirs.
Laksminarasamma and five others, who were also impleaded as respondent Nos.
1 to 10 authorised respondent No.11 to companyvert the schedule property into plots and to sell and execute sale deeds in respect thereof in favour of purchasers.
The High Court, accordingly, companycluded that the respondent Nos.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that the heirs of Uppari Ramaiah, who were made respondent Nos.
Their names were duly mutated in the Town Survey Registers and in the Revenue Records.
The respondent Nos.
