Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.
M/s. Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju v. State of Telangana and 4 Others
The present writ petition is filed to declare the speaking order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the 4th respondent specifying that the final proceedings in two LRS Application Nos.3000082585/2015-16 and 3000082615 dated 02.11.2015 with acknowledgment dated 30.12.2016 submitted by the petitioner in relation to house plots bearing Plot No.206 admeasuring 825 sq.yards and Plot No. 206/A admeasuring 812 sq.yards, total admeasuring 1637 sq.yards, situated in Survey No. 51, Gachibowli Village, Hyderabad, cannot be considered during the pendency of the cases mentioned therein, as illegal; further to direct the respondents to pass orders forthwith on the said LRS Applications.
2. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt.Pleader for Municipal and Administration appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for 5th respondent, Sri N.Saida Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
i) The Petitioner claims ownership over Plot No. 206/A admeasuring
812 Sq.Yds. situated in Survey No. 51, Gachibowli Village having
2
purchased the same from Varkasha Laxmi Nursery through a registered sale deed bearing No. 5876/2011 dated 25.11.2011. Similarly, the Petitioner also claims ownership over Plot No. 206 admeasuring 825 Sq. Yds. in the same survey number, having purchased from one Mrs. Meenakshi Nursery through a registered sale deed bearing No. 6366/2011 dated 25.11.2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'). Petitioner's predecessors-in-title in respect of both the plots purchased the subject properties from M/s Kastopa Corporation.
ii) M/s Kastopa Corporation declared Ac. 137.17 Cts. as excess land under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the above said declaration and certain persons claimed property from M/s Kastopa Corporation as protected tenants.
iii) A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 25.02.2013 declared the State as the owner over land admeasuring Ac.137.17 Cts. in Sy.Nos. 35 to 37, 40, 42 to 47 and 53 of Gachibowli Village.
iv) With respect to Ac. 36.25 Cts. in Sy.Nos.50 to 53 of Gachibowli Village was remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer (the RDO), to adjudicate afresh the rights of the protected tenants.
v) M/s Kastopa Corporation and their subsequent purchasers and possessors were declared to be the title holder with respect to the balance extent of Ac.17.00 in Sy.No.50 of the Gachibowli Village.
3
vi) The matter was remitted back to the RDO to adjudicate rights of protected tenants, M/s Kastopa Corporation and the purchasers from M/s Kastopa Corporation in respect of said Ac.36.25 Cts. in Sy.Nos.51 to 53.
vii) Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the RDO allowed the applications vide order dated 15.10.2013 of the persons claiming to be protected tenants and granted them Tenancy Certificate.
vi) An appeal was filed by the Petitioner herein before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District against the said order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the RDO and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated
24.09.2016.
vii) Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, dated 24.09.2016, various Civil Revision Petitions including CRP Nos.5732 of 2016 and 217 of 2017 were preferred by the persons claiming to be protected tenants.
viii) While the said CRPs were pending, the Petitioner herein filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 281 of 2020 seeking permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said CRPs and the said suit, a compromise deed was entered into on 01.06.2020 between the Petitioners and the purported protected tenants, whereby the purported protected tenants agreed to abandon their claim over 1637 Sq. Yds. in Plot Nos. 206 and 206A in Sy, No. 51.
ix) Recording the compromise, the Civil Court passed a decree on 08.06.2020 and this Court also disposed of the said CRPs vide common order dated 31.08.2020 holding that the said compromise should not affect
4
rights of other parties in other CRPs and rights of persons who are not parties to the compromise.
x) While things stood thus, a representation dated 23.11.2020 was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner to the Respondents to pass orders in the pending LRS applications as the disputes between the Petitioners and the protected tenants were compromised. The Petitioner received a 'Balance Fee Final Intimation Letter' on 08.12.2020 whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay the balance amounts of Rs. 11,38,111/-and Rs. 11,80,919/- The said balance fee was paid on 09.12.2020 and 10.12.2020 respectively.
xi) Thereafter, various representations dated 19.12.2020, 28.12.2020 and 05.01.2021 were submitted to process the LRS applications submitted by the Petitioner. The Respondent authority did not respond to the said representations. Hence, the present writ petition.
xii) After the present writ petition is filed, Respondent No. 4 issued a speaking order dated 10.02.2021 stating that final proceedings in LRS applications cannot be issued due to status quo orders in CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P.No.11157 of 2019 and due to pendency of CRP Nos. 2437 of 2017 and 1588 of 2017.
4.CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
i) The petitioner is the owner of the subject property.
ii) The disputes between the purported protected tenants and the Petitioner are compromised and the same was recorded by the lower court
5
in O.S. No. 281 of 2020 and by this Court in CRP Nos. 5732 of 2016 and 217 of 2017.
iii) In reply to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it was contended that an appeal was filed vide Case No.F2/192/2014 before the Joint Collector, who vide common order dated 24.09.2016 set aside the order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the RDO.
iv) The said Case No.F2/192/2014 dealt with the subject property herein and only two revisions vide CRP Nos.5732 of 2016 and 217 of 2017 were preferred. Apart from these CRPs, no other CRP is filed challenging the order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No. F2/192/2014.
v) CRP No.5279 of 2016 was filed against order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No.F2/5408/2013; CRP No. 2437 of 2017 was filed against order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No. F2/5408/2013; CRP No. 1588 of 2017 was filed against order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No. F2/5884/2013. The Petitioner herein is not party to the said CRPs. The said CRPs filed were against orders in different cases which are not concerned with the subject property.
vi) W.P.No.11157 of 2019 was filed against order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch. The Petitioner therein claims land in Sy.No.53 which is not concerned with the subject property as it falls in Sy.No.51.
6
vii) Therefore, status quo orders passed in CRP No.5279 of 2016 and W.P.No.11157 of 2019 are not applicable to the subject property and the Petitioner herein.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPNODENT NOs.2 TO 4
i) Based on the orders in CRP Nos. 5732 of 2016 & 217 of 2017 and O.S. No. 281 of 2020, the representation dated 23.11.2020 was considered and fee intimation letter dated 08.12.2020 was issued.
ii) However, it came to the notice that one Mohd. Ismail & others have submitted a representation dated 12.03.2020 informing that CRP Nos. 5279 of 2016, 2437 of 2017 and 1588 of 2017 have been filed by them and the same are pending.
iii) In CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019 status quo regarding title and ownership was ordered in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 36.25Gts in Sy. Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
iv) The Petitioner has suppressed the pendency of CRP Nos. 5279 of 2016, 2437 of 2017 and 1588 of 2017 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019.
v) There is no inaction on part of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the applications are not processed in light of the pendency of the above said cases and the interim orders directing maintenance of status quo.
vi) If the present writ petition is allowed and the LRS Applications are processed, it will amount to contempt against the orders granting status quo passed in CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019.
7
6. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NOs.6 AND 7 AND RESPONDENT No.8 i) Initially, Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and Respondent No.8 filed their implead applications. They contended that the LRS Applications should not be processed in favour of the Petitioner as other CRPs are pending.
ii) However, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Respondent No. 8 have amicably settled the issues between them.
iii) Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Respondent No. 8 have filed a memo and Counter Affidavit supporting the Petitioner's case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
7. It is evident from the facts of the case that a status quo orders were granted in CRP No.5279 of 2016 and W.P.No.11157 of 2019 on the entire extent of Ac. 36.25Gts in Sy.Nos.51 to 53. The operative parts of the said orders is extracted below:
CRP No. 5279 of 2016
"In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience and the interest of justice would be sufficiently served by directing status quo to be maintained with regard to the title and ownership over the extent of Ac.36.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.51 to 53." W.P. 11157 OF 2019
"In the light of the interim order granted in C.R.P.No.5279 of 2016, there shall be a direction to maintain status quo with regard to the tile and ownership over the extent admeasuring Acs.36.25 guntas in Survey Nos.51, 52 and 53 of Gachibowli Village, pending further orders."
8
It may be true that the subject property may not be involved in the lis in the pending CRPs, however, the status quo orders granted by this Court in CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019 cover the entire extent of Acs.36.25 guntas in Survey Nos.51 to 53. Admittedly, the subject property falls in Survey No.51. Further, W.P.No.11157 of 2019 is filed against order dated 25.09.2016 in Case No.F2/5408/2013 and batch. The batch also includes Case No.F2/192/2014 which dealt with the subject property. Therefore, the subject property is covered under the status quo orders in CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019.
8. It was argued by the Petitioner that the status quo orders are only with regards to title and ownership and it does not preclude the Petitioner from seeking layout regularization. This Court cannot accept this contention as LRS proceedings are ancillary and are dependent on title and ownership. When there is an interim order granting stay or status quo the authorities cannot proceed with any kind of action which will dilute the effect of such interim order.
9. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contended that if the pending LRS Applications are processed then the authorities will be in contempt of orders passed in CRP No. 5279 of 2016 and W.P. No. 11157 of 2019. There is substantial force in the submission as it is impossible for the authorities to do an act which is impossible for them to do.
10. The maxim of equity, namely, lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly perform) is applicable to facts of the present case. In Industrial Finance Corpn. of
9
India Ltd. v. Cannanore Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. 1 the Apex Court explaining the maxim held as follows:
30. The Latin maxim referred to in the English judgment lex non cogit ad impossibilia also expressed as impotentia excusat legem in common English acceptation means, the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. There ought always thus to be an invincible disability to perform the obligation and the same is akin to the Roman maxim nemo tenetur ad impossibile. In Broom's Legal Maxims the state of the situation has been described as below:
"It is, then, a general rule which admits of ample practical illustration, that impotentia excusat legem; where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over, there the law will in general excuse him (t): and though impossibility of performance is in general no excuse for not performing an obligation which a party has expressly undertaken by contract, yet when the obligation is one implied by law, impossibility of performance is a good excuse. Thus in a case in which consignees of a cargo were prevented from unloading a ship promptly by reason of a dock strike, the Court, after holding that in the absence of an express agreement to unload in a specified time there was implied obligation to unload within a reasonable time, held that the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia applied, and Lindley, L.J., said: 'We have to do with implied obligations, and I am not aware of any case in which an obligation to pay damages is ever cast by implication upon a person for not doing that which is rendered impossible by causes beyond his control.
Therefore, due to the apprehensions of contempt, it is impossible for the Respondent authorities to process the LRS Applications of the Petitioner in the light of the above status quo orders.
Comments