The High Court clubbed both the writ petitions.
The effect of the impugned judgment of the High Court is that both LGCs, i.e., 41/1994 and 50/2004 filed by the respondents against the appellant stand decreed in relation to the respective suit land involved in both the applications and the original appellant herein has to restore the possession of the portion of the suit lands which is in her possession to the respondents.
15055 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.
1 in the case illegally and without any lawful title and authority has encroached upon a portion of the suit land of which the respondents are the owners and hence under the provisions of the Act, the respondents have become entitled to claim possession of the illegally encroached portion of the suit land from the appellant which essentially belonged to them.
41/1994 also filed writ petition in the High Court.
27567 of 2008 while companyfirming the judgment dated 23.10.2008 of the Special Court in LGC No.50 of 2004.
The appellant number applicant No.1 , in support of her case, also filed documents of title, revenue entries and other documents.
50/2004 is companycerned, it was in relation to another portion of the same suit land.
The appellant, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the Special Court dated 23.10.2008 passed in LGC No.50/2004, filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereas the respondents felt aggrieved of the order dated 16.04.2004 passed in LGC No.
Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior companynsel for respondent Nos.3,7 and 8, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.4 5.
Parties then adduced evidence.
It was held that the original appellant herein was neither able to rebut the case of respondents as per Section 10 of the Act by proving their prima facie legal title over the suit land number legal possession over the portion of the suit land and, therefore, she is held as land grabber in relation to the land in her possession under the Act and, hence, she is liable to restore the portion of the suit land which is held to be in her illegal possession to the applicants respondents herein .
50/2004 and affirmed the judgment of Special Court dated 23.10.2008.
By companymon impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, set aside the judgment dated 16.04.2004 passed in LGC No.41/1994 and, in companysequence, allowed their application and, in companysequence, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 23.10.2008 passed in LGC No.
129 new Survey No.
So far as LGC No.41/1998 is companycerned, it was filed against Kazimmunisa since dead and number represented by her legal representative appellant herein as number applicant No.
He then alleged that the Government record does number support the respondents case and number the facts stated in the application by the respondents tracing their title tally with the Governments record.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in these two appeals, few relevant facts need mention.
358 , S. Nos.1/3 and 5/3 situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
Felt aggrieved, the original appellant has challenged the impugned companymon judgment of the High Court by way of appeal by special leave before this Court.
41/1998 as number applicant Nos.
The Special Court, by order 16.06.2004, dismissed the respondents application finding numbermerit therein.
She took the same defense, which she had taken in LGC No.
So far as LGC No.
50/2004 is companycerned, it was filed only against Kazimmunisa and her family member as number applicant No.
LGC No.50/2004 .
She also raised the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code and also raised the plea of limitation.
2 and 3.
2 is companycerned, he also filed the written statement companynter affidavit on behalf of the State.
50/2004 and denied the respondents claim.
The respondents, as mentioned above in LGC 50/2004, impleaded only the original appellant as number applicant No.1 but neither impleaded the District Collector number the Special Officer Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad as number applicant along with the appellant.
So far as LGC No.
1 number represented by her legal representative .
The original appellant herein filed written statement in LGC No.
He found fault in the title traced by the respondents over the suit land and companytended that the respondents have number been able to establish their prima facie title over the suit land.
In our companysidered opinion, the need to remand the aforementioned two LGCs to the Special Court is companysidered necessary due to the following reasons.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In other words, in LGC No.50/2004, District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist.
By order dated 23.10.2008, the Special Court allowed this application LGC No.50/2004 and held that the applicants respondents herein are prima facie the owners of the portion of the suit land, which has been in possession of the appellant.
41/1994 to prove her ownership over the portion of the suit land.
27567 of 2008 whereby the Division Bench allowed Writ Petition No.15055 of 2004 by reversing the judgment dated 16.06.2004 of the Special Court in LGC No.41 of 1998 and dismissed Writ Petition No.
and Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad were number impleaded as number applicants though both these State authorities were impleaded in LGC No.
These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Date 2017.11.15 172141 IST Reason in Writ Petition No.
The appellant number applicant No.
Having heard the learned senior companynsel for the parties at length and on perusal of their written submissions and the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and while setting aside of the impugned judgment of the High Court and also of the Special Court in both the cases L.G.C. Nos.41/1994 and 50/2004 remand both the LGCs to Special Court for their disposal afresh on merits in accordance with law as indicated below.
41/1998.
This application was also based on somewhat identical averments on which LGC No.
He also denied the respondents claim including the respondents title over the suit land.
The respondents then alleged that the original appellant herein number applicant No.
1, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District as number applicant No.
The respondents, in support of their claim of ownership over the suit land traced their title through some documents of title of their predecessor in title, entries in the revenue records and other documentary evidence and on the basis of these documents, alleged that their title over the suit land including portion of the suit land is prima facie established as against the appellant.
So far as the District Collector number applicant No.
The dispute in these appeals relate to land bearing old Survey No.
41/1998 was founded for claiming relief therein.
50/2004 is companycerned, it was filed two months prior to the disposal of first case, i.e., LGC No.
One case was filed on 02.01.1998, i.e., LGC No.41/1998 whereas the other was filed on 15.04.2004,i.e.,
