1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-

CUM-II.ADDL.DISTGRICT JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

I.A.NO. OF 2022
IN

L.R.A.NO. 4 OF 2021
Between:

1. Late Koduru Venkataramaiah (died)

PER LRs Petitioners 2 & 3/Respondents 4 & 5

2. Koduru Arjunrao S/o late Koduru Srinivasa Rao

aged about 49 years, Private Employee,
now R/o Gudivada, Krishna Dist.

3. Koduru Sri Venkata Ramana Subramanyeswar Rao

S/o late Koduru Srinivasa Rao
aged about 47 years,
Private Employee,
now R/o Gudivada, Krishna Dist. ...Petitioners/
Respondents 3-5
And
1. Mr. Chitturi Srihari and
42 Others ..Respondents/
Respondents 1-41
Respondents 1&2
AFFDIAVIT

I, Koduru Arjun Rao S/o. Late Koduru Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 48
years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P.,
having now temporarily come down to Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the 1st petitioner herein and 4th respondent in the appeal, and, as
such, I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am also authorized
to depose this affidavit on behalf of 2 nd petitioner herein and 5th
respondent, in the appeal, who is my brother.
..2
 2

::2::

1. I respectfully submit that the two Interlocutory Applications in

I.A.No.220 of 2021 & I.A.No. 643 of 2021 in LRA No.4 of 2021 are
being heard together finally by this Hon’ble Court. The Appellants who
are third parties challenging the LRT Order dt.18-12-2019 have filed the
Appeal against the Petitioners/Respondents herein. The Appellants have
concluded their Arguments. Now, the learned Addl.Govt.Pleader has to
submit his Arguments. However, The 42 nd Respondent herein/1st
Respondent in the LRA, has filed two Interlocutory Applications in I.A
SR No.____ of 2022 and I.A SR No._____ of 2022 under Order 41 Rule
33 of CPC, 1908, seeking eschewal of some of the documents relied by
the Respondents 3 to 5 from the record and summoning of some
documents not on record, respectively through their learned
Addl.Govt.Pleader appearing for the 42nd Respondent herein/Respondent
No.1 in the LRA, who are on the same footing as that of the Petitioners
herein/Respondents 3 to 5 in the LRA.

2. I humbly submit that I take strong exception to the filing of these kind of
frivolous and vexatious Petitions and Affidavits by the 42nd /1st
Respondent through their arned Addl.Govt.Pleader with an intention to
drag on the hearing of this case for the reasons better known to him
instead of submitting his Arguments after availing many adjournments
for advancing his Arguments. The contents of the Petition and Affidavit
of the Tahsildar being subordinate to the 2 nd Respondent is doubting and
questing the integrity of the institution - Land Reforms Tribunal
constituted under Act 1973. It is known whether the 1 st Respondent
through their learned Addl.Govt.Pleader is filing these kind of frivolous
and vexatious Petitions with the consent of his superior Law officers of
the State or not. It is requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
take the assistance or indulgence of the Advocate General or
Addl.Advocate General for the State of Telangana by seeking their
presence before this Hon’ble Court so as to keep this Hon’ble Court
informed of the opinion of the Government being beneficiary of Ac.27-00
Gts in Hyderabad in this case.
 3

Hence this Memo.

Date:23-9-2022
Place:L.B.Nagar Counsel for Respondents Nos.3 to 5

2. I submit that before I advert into various contentions of the appellants in

the ground of LRA, the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
The appeal has been filed by the appellants is not maintainable, in as
much as they have approached this L.R.A.T., with unclean hands as they
have failed to state about the statutory prescription of Section-17 of the
T.S. land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973, (herein
after referred to as Act) wherein it has mandated all the transactions taken
place during the pendency of the ceiling case and before determination of
the ceiling proceedings are null and void and without there being any
pleading about the same in the appeal, the appeal is liable tobe dismissed
in limini.

3. It is submitted that for convenience of this Hon’ble Court, Section-17(1)

of the Act as follows:-
“17. Prohibition of alienation of holding - (1) No person whose holding, and
no member of a family unit, the holding of all the members of which in the aggregate,
is in excess of the ceiling area as on the 24th January, 1971 or at any time thereafter,
shall on or after the notified date, alienate his holding or any part thereof by way of
sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usnfructuary mortgage or otherwise,
or effect a partition thereof, or create a trust or convert an agricultural land into non-
agricultural land, until he or the family unit, as the case may be, has furnished a
declaration under section 8, and the extent of land, if any, to be surrendered in respect
of his holding or that of his family unit has been determined by the Tribunal and an
order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under this Act taking
possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area and a notification is published
 4

under section 16; and any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in
contravention of this section shall be null and void and any conversion so made shall
be disregarded.”

In view of the above provisions of Section-17 (1) of the Act, all the
alianations taken place over the subject land are null and void and
accordingly the L.R.T. declared those
..3

::3::

alienations/transaction are null and void, as such, the appellants have filed
the present appeal to mislead this Hon’ble Court and obtained ex-party
interim stay on 10-03-2021, as such, it is liable to be vacated on this
ground.

4. It is submitted that the Appellants are 3rd parties to the ceiling proceeding
before the L.R.A.T., as admitted by them, as such, they have to obtain
leave of this Court to file an appeal before this Court and after issuing
notices to the respondents to file their objections to that leave and after
considering those objections only this Court has to decide whether the
appeal is maintainable or not, in view of the Section-20 read with
Sections-17 and 19 of the Act, then only, the question of granting leave
and granting interim order would arise. It is submitted that the same view
has been taken by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.A.No.472 of 2021 and W.A.No.475 of 2021 dt.20-09-2021, as such,
the interim stay granted on 10-03-2021 is liable to be vacated on this
ground alone and it is now not open to the appellants to file seeking a
leave to file an appeal at this stage which amounts to post-facto decision.
 5

5. It is submitted that, since appeal itself is not maintainable, the appellants

are not entitled for any interim orders and that too without issuing a prior
notice as mandated under Rule 15(3) of the A.P.Land Reforms Rules,
1974, as such, the interim orders granted are liable to be vacated. Before I
traverse into various allegations and contentions raised in the affidavit
accompanied appeal, I submit the following facts for proper appreciation
of the case.
…4

::4::

6. I humbly submit that my paternal uncle, namely, Sri. Koduru

Venkataramaiah had filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal,
Hyderabad East Division, Hyderabad District on 10.04.1975 for the lands
situated in Sy.Nos. 41,83, 132, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337, 15 and 511 to a
total extent of Ac. 116.10 Gts., situated at Bachupally Village and the
same has been registered as LCC/702/B/1975. I submit that while filing
the above declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as LRT). My paternal uncle has shown his brother, namely,
Sri. Koduru Srinivasa Rao, as share-holder of the Joint Property, who was
our father.

7. I humbly submit that subsequent to filing the above declaration the lands
were inspected by the concerned authorities as per the mandatory
prescriptions of the Land Ceiling Act, and identified the lands as “J”
Category. Thereafter, the L.R.T, has passed an order dated 30-10-1976
by discarding the contentions of the declarant therein, viz., the subject
lands situated in Bachupalli Village were purchased out of the funds of
 6

the Joint Family and brother of the declarant who shown as share-holder
is also entitled for the share in the lands in question and held that the
declarant has failed to establish the relationship of Joint Family and
directed to surrender 2.7476 standard holdings as excess land out of
3.7476 standard holdings. Aggrieved with the same, our paternal uncle
has preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal
(LRAT), but he was unsuccessful before the LRAT vide orders dated 04-
08-1977.

..5

::5::

8. It is relevant to submit that prior to filing of the appeal before the LRAT,
the then Tahsildar, Medchal Taluq, has submitted a report on 10-12-1976
to the LRT, stating that pursuant to the orders of the LRT in C.C.No.
702/B/75, dated 30-10-1976 he has been taken over the possession of the
lands situated in Sy.Nos. 41, 83, 132, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337, 15 and 511
to an extent of Ac. 116.10 Gts., situated at Bachupally which an
equivalent to 2.3250 standard holdings out of 2.7476 and requested to
work out for the remaining excess land under L.C. Act. In view of the
above, it is clearly established fact that the respondents have become
custodian legacy over the subject land, as such, it is duty cast upon them
to protect the subject land till the determination of the entire ceiling
proceedings.

9. It is submitted that our paternal uncle had instituted CRP No. 3266/1977
before the Hon’ble High Court assailing the validity and correctness of
the order of the LRT dated 30-10-1976 as well as LRAT dated 04-08-
 7

1977 and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow the above CRP
No. 3266/1977 on 21-03-1978 by considering the contentions of our
Paternal Uncle with regard to properties of the Joint Family and about the
share of my father and pleased to set aside the orders of the LRT dated
30-10-1976 as well as LRAT dated 04-08-1977 and hold that our Paternal
Uncle as well as our father are entitled to each share in the land situated
in Sy.Nos. 41, 83, 132, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337, 15 and 511, to an extent
of Ac. 116-10 Gts. and remanded the matter to the LRT for determination
of the excess land, if any, to be surrender by the declarant therein in the
light of the findings given by the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.
…6

::6::

3266/1977. Accordingly, the matter had to be taken up for determination

by the L.R.T., to the limited extent in terms of the Judgment in CRP No.
3266 of 1977. As such, the matter has become final and this Hon’ble
Court ought not to have granted interim stay which would tantamount to
sitting in appeal over the Hon’ble High Court Judgment in
CRP.No.3266/1977. As such, the interim order granted on 10.03.2021 is
liable to be vacated on this ground alone.

10. I respectfully submit that while matters stood thus, our Paternal Uncle has
filed a declaration before Special Officer and Competent Authority under
ULC, which has been assigned with Procgs.No. G/216/1982 and the same
was decided as ex-parte on 23-12-1988, aggrieved with the same, an
appeal has been preferred to the Appellate Authority with No.
UC.1/1974/89 and the same has been allowed on 20-01-1989 and
 8

remanded the matter to the Special Officer and Competent Authority for
re-consideration and re-determination.

11. It is submitted that the L.R.T., has made huge correspondence with the
ULC, so as to enable it to determine the LCC No. 702/B/75 as per the
Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No. 3266/1977. It is
submitted that the ULC authorities have not finally determine the ceiling
case under the ULC and the proceedings under Sec. 10(6) of the ULC
was not initiated and in the meanwhile the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act was repealed by the Government in the year 2008 and
the same is evident from the note file dt.08-07-2021 of the ULC which is
appended for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
..7

::7::

12. It is submitted that even after conclusion of the ULC proceedings the
L.R.T. has failed to determine the matter as directed by the Hon’ble High
Court. In this regard, it would be relevant to submit that during the
pendency of the matter before the LRT., and ULC, my paternal uncle as
well as my father have expired and my brother had made an application
before the LRT to brought me as legal heir for both by representing my
mother as a natural guardian as he was minor at that point of time.

13. I respectfully submit that we have requested the L.R.T., to determine the
declaration as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.
3266 of 1977 and the LRT has passed orders on 18-12-2019 strictly in
compliance of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.
 9

3266/1977, as such, respondents/appellants herein have no locus standi to

assail the orders of the L.R.T., dt.18-12-2019 as their alienations which
were taken place during the pendency of the declaration before the
L.R.T., are declared as null and void by the L.R.T., under Section-17 of
the Act and by virtue of the present appeal it is not open for the
appellants/respondents as well as this Hon’ble Court to validate those
alienations under Section 20 of the Act. As such, respondents/appellants
are not entitled to file an appeal under Section 20, in such an event
granting of interim stay in their favour does not arise as such interim
order granted on 10-03-2021 is liable to be vacated on this ground alone.

..8

::8::

14. It is submitted that, while granting interim stay on 10-03-2021 this

Hon’ble Court has viewed from the angle of the respondents/appellants
ought to have consider the rights of the
petitioners herein and granting interim stay caused immense prejudice to
the petitioners herein at the instance of 3 rd parties whose transactions hit
by Section 17 of the Act. As such, the interim order granted on 10-03-
2021 is liable to be vacated.

15. It is submitted that while granting the interim stay this Hon’ble Court
relied upon a judgment reported in 2001(2) An.W.R. 477 (AP) (Tanati
Venugopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., rep., by its Special Tahasildar (Land
Reforms) and Authorised Officer, Nellore) which is not applicable to the
present facts of the case in as much as the said judgment relates to the
 10

alienations taken place prior to 24-01-1971 to 02-05-1972 i.e., crucial

period or prior to that, as such the Hon’ble High Court in judgment was
pleased to hold that those alienees are entitled for notice, but in the
instant case, all the alleged alienations said to have been taken place after
filing of the declaration under Section-8 of the Act before the L.R.T.,
therefore, those transactions are hit by the provisions of Section-17 of
the Act and are null and void and estoppal by law. As such, the L.R.T.,
has been declared those alienations as null and void. In this regard it
would be relevant to the entire claim of the appellants/respondents is that
they are the owners of the plots, but they failed to state as to how those
plots existence in the agricultural land and it is for their duty to verify
whether the lands which they said to have been purchased are coming
under the purview of the Land Reforms Act or not, admittedly the
appellants/respondents
..9

::9::

failed to do so and it is not open for them now to blame the petitioners
herein or L.R.T., for their own lapses and they cannot plead that they are
entitled for notice where their transactions hit by the provisions of
Section 17 of the Act which is a special enactment, as such the interim
stay granted on 10-03-2021 is liable to be vacated on this ground also.

16. It is submitted that all the alleged alienations are said to have taken place
over the subject land including the appellants/respondents herein hit by
the provisions of Section-19 of the Act, for want of declaration before
the registering authority.
 11

17. It is submitted that it is the settled principle of law that the right of property
is considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a
human right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. In this case, my
paternal uncle filed declaration in the year 1975 and even after elapse of
45 years, the State and sub-ordinate authorities, on one pretext or the
other are protracting the litigation only with an intention to help the
unscrupulous investors in the litigation for clandestine transactions with a
mala fide intention to cause hardship to the declarants, who are the
original owners in preventing to enjoy the fruits of the property in gross
violation of the Constitutional guarantees given under Article 21 which
proves the arbitrariness of the State, and the State is liable for not only the
re-surrender the land to the owner/declarant, and equally liable to pay
compensation, damages.
..10

::10::

18. It is submitted that the declarant/ paternal uncle filed an affidavit before
the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No. 3266/1977 admitting the right of my
father as co-sharer of the Joint-family and accepting the contentions, and
after hearing the State Government, revision has been disposed of by the
Hon’ble High Court, directing the LRT to re-determine the standard
holdings, duly allotting equal share to our father and paternal uncle, as
such, there is no necessity to file any registered document, and more over,
the LRT itself is conferred with the power to determine such an issues as
it is not the fresh declaration and it only amounts to re-computation of
 12

declaration as per the remand orders passed in CRP No. 3266 of 1977,
dated 21-03-1978. It is submitted that the respondents herein have
enclosed a registered Settlement Deed dated 17-08-1980 executed by our
father in favour of respondents herein with regard to partition of
properties situated at Mudinepally Village, and family members
certificate issued by the Government, which clinchingly proves that we
are the successors of Late Srinivasa Rao, and the Tribunal, rightly taking
note of the above documents has determined the computation and
allotted the share. Therefore, there is no illegally and infirmities
warranting interference by filing an appeal by the Appellant who is a
Third Party and contrary to the very object of the Land Reforms Act, the
Appellant being a Third party at the behest of the unscrupulous investors
filed this appeal which is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

..11

::11::

19. It is submitted that the very basis and foundation for filing an appeal is a
document styled as registered WILL vide Doct.No. 37/1978, dated 08-
12-1978 in favour of Khaja Lakshmi Kishore. The said document was
marked as an Exhibit/Annexure before the Land Reforms Tribunal
pursuant to the claim made by some of the claimants. The perusal of the
document discloses that the said alleged Will Doct.No. 37/1978
registered under Book No. III, Vol.No. 7, pages 17 and 18, on the file of
the SRO, Khairathabad, is a forged and fabricated document. In fact, the
document obtained from the SRO, Khairathabad vide Doct.No. 37/1978
 13

discloses that the said document was executed by one Smt.

Seetharamamma W/o. Nalluri Nagarathaiah, for the properties at
Vijaywada, and the same are nothing to do with the properties subject
matter of CC.No. 702/M/1975.

20. It is submitted that the Land Reforms Tribunal has issued notices to all
the affected parties and after following the due procedure, and after
providing opportunity of hearing, has finalized the declaration in C.C.No.
702/M/1975, and a duty is cast upon the State and its authorities to revert
the land u/s. 12 of the Act to the declarants or their legal heirs as held in
the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court as
the Government has taken over the possession of the land way back in
the year 1976 which is evident from the Report of the then Tahsildar
dated 10-12-1976.
..12

::12::

21. It is submitted that even though the LRT has passed an order on 18-12-
2019, since the said orders have been passed after long lapse of time
without strictly in compliance with the orders passed in CRP No. 3266 of
1997 and W.P.No. 6993 of 2020, the respondents herein constrained to
file C.C No. 910 of 2020 and C.C.No. 850 of 2020. The Hon’ble High
Court, having prima facie found the indifferent attitude of the
Respondents therein determining ceiling proceedings after lapse of 45
years, taking cognizance and issued the notices to the respondents
therein, representing the State. Viewing from any angle, there is no
 14

substance, the appellants have not made out the prima facie case even for
admission. As such, they are not entitled for any interim orders.
Therefore, the orders dt.10-3-20221 in I.A.No. 220 of 2021 in LRA No. 4
of 2021, are liable to be vacated on the facts and circumstances of the
case, and in the interest of justice.

22. It is submitted that in specific reply to Para 6 of the Petition, The delay
aspect is explained below:-

Sl.No. Date Discerption of event Remarks

1 221-03-1978 Hon’ble High Court rendered judgment in To redetermine the
CRP No.3266/1977 ceiling limit
2 110-08-1981 The Tahasildar addressed letter to the Requested to pass
RDO final order.
3 09-03-1982 A declaration filed before ULC for a
formal compliance of ULC Act although
not necessary
4 409-05-1982 Summons have issued by the LRT for Determination was
09-02-1984, redetermination of the excess ceiling area under process.
08-09-1984 in compliance of the CRP judgment
07-11-1984 etc, directed the declarants to furnish
documents in support of their claim.
5 07-02-1986 A Memo filed stating that the declaration -do-
was pending before the ULC and no
orders were received and requested to
adjournment,.
6. 23-12-1988 ULC passed orders -do-
7 JAN.1989 Appeal filed against ULC order
8 20-01-1989 ULC Appellate authority remanded the -do-
matter to hear afresh
9 Since Feb.1989 Matter pending consideration before the -do-
ULC
10 Since The LRT made correspondence to the -do-
1991,1992, ULC and informed the LRT could not
12-05-1993 finalize the ceiling case in terms of CRP
08-08-1994 judgment on account of lack of
information from ULC about declaration
11 From No communication made by the LRT and -do-
08-08-1994 no reply was given by the ULC and the
judgment in CRP hs not been pending
compliance
12 14-06-2007 The Collector, ULC filed counter affidavit -do-
 15

in W.P.No.2191/2007 filed by one of the

Vendors Mr.M.Ashok like the appellants
herein stated at Para-5 & 6 that the
purchase made after commencement of the
Act and while pending determination of
the declaration, as such, they null and void
and the declaration is yet to be finalized.
13 27-03-2008 ULC Act repealed -do-
14 08-07-2011 The ULC closed the declaration as it has -do-
not reached Sec.10(6) stage.
15. Between No correspondence was made between the Since 1993 to 2011
08-08-1994 LRT and ULC and even after closing the no progress from
And ULC and also to the declarant was administration side
08-07-2011 informed till date
16 05-10-2015 Respondents/legal heirs filed application
under RTI
17 17-11-2015 LRT furnished the information under RTI Which reveals the
ceiling proceedings
are yet to be
finalized
18 10-05-2016 Legal heirs submitted representation to the -do-
LRT as well as other competent authorities
19 03-08-2016 Summons issued to the affected parties Steps were initiated
20 From Hearings commencing and the rival parties Ceiling proceedings
03-08-2016 like the appellants herein filed counter are in progress
affidavits and we filed reply affidavits
along with supported documentary
evidence

21 18-12-2019 LRT passed the orders Ceiling proceedings

are still pending no
possession is taken
and no certificate of
delivery of
possession is given
as per Law

In view of the above chronology of events since 21-03-1978 to 08-07-2011 the

ceiling proceedings were kept pending by both the authorities viz., LRT and
ULC which were brought into light on our representation. Therefore, the delay
is attributable to the authorities but not attributed to us. Hence there is no delay.
Accordingly, the delay is answered. Still the proceedings are pending on
account of the erroneous claims raised by the non-locus individuals like the
appellants herein.
 16

22. I submit it is pertinent to mention here that, as the case has reached the
crucial stage involving the following steps:
(i) Calling objections in Form-VIII;
(ii) To pass order in Form-IX to take possession of the Land;
(iii) Serving of Notice under Form-X to surrender the land;
(iv) To issue of Certificate of delivery of possession to the owner
in Form-XII; and
(v) To issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds

23. I humbly submit that the petitioners are preferring this Vacate Petition
following among other grounds.
GROUNDS

a. The LRA filed by the Appellants is illegal, contrary to settled law and
facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
..15

::15::
b. The Appellants did not comprehend the legal and factual matrix of the
case and filed the I.A No.220 of 2021 and the LRA No. 4 of 2021
without considering the Respondents’ Constitutional right to property
secured to them by Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

c. This Hon’ble Tribunal ought to have issued notice to us under Rule

15(3) under TS Land Reforms(COAH), Rules, 1974 instead of
granting interim Stay under Rule 15(4) under TS Land
Reforms(COAH), Rules, 1974 before hearing the LRA.

d. This Hon’ble Tribunal ought not to have entertained this LRA and
granted interim stay on 10-3-2021 as the order dt.18-12-2019 passed
 17

by the L.R.T. is in compliance with the directions in CRP 3266/1977

dated 30-10-1976, hence the L.R.A. is liable to be dismissed.

e. This Hon’ble Tribunal ought not to have entertained this LRA for
want of quorum under Rule 14(2) of TS Land Reforms (COAH) Rules
1974.

f. This Hon’ble Tribunal ought not to have admitted this LRA and
granted interim stay as the order dt.18-12-2019 passed by the L.R.T.
is not a first instance order as it was passed in compliance with the
directions in the Order in CRP 3266/1977. The then L.R.A.T., had
adjudicated the order passed by the LRT dt. 30-10-1976. If this LRA
is again entertained, it would amount to res-judicata under
Explanation VIII of Section 11 of CPC, 1908. Hence, the Appellants
have no locus to prefer this L.R.A. and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
..16

::16::

g. The averment that this appeal is within the limitation as the

Appellants came to know about the LRT order on 25-1-2021 is totally
wrong. The period of limitation shall be counted from the date of
statutory order as the LRT order dt.18-12-2019 is statutory in nature.
Hence, this appeal is adversely hit by the provisions of the Limitation
R/w Sub-Sec. (3) of Section 20 of Ceiling Act. Hence the LRA is
barred by limitation.

h. The appeal filed willfully withholding the relevant information borne

on record and the same is based on misinformation. Hence the appeal
is liable to be set aside on the ground it was filed with unclean hands.
 18

i. The Appellants relied upon a judgment reported in 2001(2) An.W.R.

477 (AP) (Tanati Venugopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., rep., by its
Special Tahasildar (Land Reforms) and Authorised Officer, Nellore)
which is not applicable to the present facts of the case in as much as
the said judgment relates to the alienations taken place prior to 24-01-
1971 to 02-05-1972 i.e., crucial period or prior to that, as such the
Hon’ble High Court in judgment was pleased to hold that those
alienees are entitled for notice, but in the instant case, all the alleged
alienations said to have been taken place after filing of the declaration
under Section-8 of the Act before the L.R.T., therefore, those
transactions are hit by the provisions of Section-17 of the Act and are
null and void and estoppal by law. As such, the L.R.T., has been
declared those alienations as null and void. In this regard it would be
relevant to the entire claim of the appellants is that they are
..17

::17::

the owners of the plots, but they failed to state as to how those plots
existence in the agricultural land and it is for their duty to verify
whether the lands which they said to have been purchased are coming
under the purview of the Land Reforms Act or not, admittedly the
appellants/respondents failed to do so and it is not open for them now
to blame the petitioners herein or L.R.T., for their own lapses and they
cannot plead that they are entitled for notice where their transactions
hit by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act which is a special
enactment, as such the interim stay granted on 10-03-2021 is liable to
be vacated on this ground also.
 19

j. The averment that the L.R.T. passed the orders without issuing notices
is also totally wrong as the LRT, after calling a report from the
Tahsildar, Bachupally, and after verification, issued notices to the
individuals on 03-08-2016, 07-11-2016, 04-11-2017 and some of
those individuals, who received notices have been filed their
objections and contested the matter, as such, this ground raised by the
appellant is misconception of the facts, hence this ground is liable to
be rejected.

k. The averment about our legal heir ship / succession is concerned, we

have filed the Family Member Certificate issued by the concerned
authority as well as registered Settlement Deed executed by our father,
have been produced before the LRT and taking the notice of the above
..18

::18::

documents, the LRT has decided the declaration filed by my paternal

uncle and accepted our succession, for which, LRT is competent to do
so, as such, the appellant’s ground on succession and legal heir ship is
liable to be rejected.

l. The filing of the fresh declaration and documents in terms of Section

8 of the Act, 1973 does not arise as it is not a case of filing fresh
declaration and it is the case of enquiry and determination of ceiling
area by the LRT u/s. 9 of the Act, 1973 read with Rule 6 of the Rules
1974 as directed in the CRP No. 3266/1977 and the same was kept
 20

pending since 1986 despite filing IA for expediting the determination

in terms of the Judgment in CRP.

m. The averment that the Declarant had executed an alleged WILL

which was alleged to be registered in favour of one Khaja Lakshmi
Kishore who is alleged to be the beneficiary of the WILL is said to
have alienated entire property to third
parties would amount to denying our right. On perusal of the alleged
WILL, it was found to be fabricated and as such discarded the same
by exercising the powers vested with the LRT.

n. Non-furnishing of copy of the order of the L.R.T., would not

constitute a ground to prefer the appeal because the determination now
made by the L.R.T., is not a first hearing, as mentioned above, it is
the enquiry and determination of ceiling area as directed in the order
in CRP., wherein the Hon’ble High Court rendered its findings on
merits that we are entitled to two standard Holdings.
..19

::19::

Hence furnishing of copy is an empty formality. Hence the ground is

liable to be rejected.

o. The Appellants have given totally false information and ignored the
fact on record as the execution of the order dt.18-12-2019 has
commenced from the issuance of Form-VI and Form-VII and
submission of proposed surrender statements. Once the proceedings of
execution of the LRT Order commences, preferring this appeal would
be barred under law both on the grounds of limitation as well as on the
 21

principle of Res-judicata and it can be presumed that the third parties

ignoring the interests of the Government as well as the lawful owners
also.

24. I submit that this Hon’ble Tribunal through this Vacate Petition may
protect the rights of the Petitioners 1 to 3/Respondents Nos.3 to 5 in the
I.A No.220 of 2021 and the LRA NO.4 of 2021 and if the interim stay is
not vacated, I shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated by any means and the very purpose of filing the present
Petition will be defeated.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to vacate

the Interim Stay Order dated 10-3-2021 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2021 in
LRA No.4 of 2021 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

Sworn and signed before me Deponent

On this the day of September, 2021
At Hyderabad.
..20

::20::

Before me

Advocate::Hyderabad.

VERIFICATION STATEMENT

I, Koduru Arjun Rao S/o. Late Koduru Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 48 years,
Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P., having now
temporarily come down to Hyderabad, do hereby verify and declare that the
contents stated in the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
 22

knowledge, belief and information. Hence, verified on this the day of

September, 2021, at Hyderabad.

Counsel for Petitioners No. 1 to 3/ Deponent

Respondents 3 to 5

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, LAND REFORMS APPELALTE

TRIBUNAL-CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT, AT: L.B.NAGAR

I.A.No. OF 2021
IN
I.A.No. 220 OF 2021
 23

IN
L.R.A.No. 4 OF 2021
Between:

1.K.Venkatramaiah S/o.Subbaiah(Died)
Per LRs Petitioners 2 & 3/ R-4 & R-5

2. KoduruArjunrao
S/o late KoduruSrinivasaRao
aged about 48 years,
Private Employee,
now R/o Gudivada, Krishna Dist.

3. Koduru Sri VenkataSubramanyeswarRao

S/o late KoduruSrinivasaRao
aged about 46 years, Occ:Private Employee,
now R/o Gudivada, Krishna Dist. ..Petitioners/
Respondents 3-5/
Respondents 3-5

AND

1. Mr. Chitturi Srihari S/o Ch.Surya Rao,

Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.6-3-905, Vakil Farm Village,
Varini mandal, Nizamabad Dist. 503201.

2. Mrs.Chitturi Madhavi W/o Sri Chitturi Srihari,

Aged about 36 years, Occ: House Wife,
R/o H.No.6-3-905, Vakil Farm Village,
Varini mandal, Nizamabad Dist. 503201

3. Smt.Bolledla Sushmitha W/o Sri Bolldia

Santosh Kumar, aged about 28 years,
Oc: House Wife, R/o Plot No.35, Flat No.201,
Svins Enclave, Pragathinagar, Opp.JNTUC
Kukatpally, Hyderabad, PAN No.BLEPP8568G
Mobile No.88855435750.

4. Mrs.Getti Sakkubai W/o G.Munna Swamy,

Aged about 45 years, Occ. Tailoring
R/o H.No.12-2-826/8/1, Vivekandana
Colony, Mehidiplatnam, Hyderabad-500028.

5. Mr.Getti Siddhartha S/o G.Munna Swamy,

 24

Aged about 23 years, Occ: Private Service,

R/o H.No.12-2-826/B/1, Vivekananda Colony,
Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

6. Smt.Middela SriLatha W/o Sri Middela Narender

Reddy aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.5-120, Bowrampet Village, Dundigal
Gandimaisamma mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

7. Sri P.Rajesh S/o Lte Sri P.Vasudeva Rao,

Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o
Flat No.204, Kalyn Towers, Hydernagar,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-5000072.

8. Smt.N.Vanaja W/o N.Veerareddy,

aged about 22 years, Occ:House-wfie,
R/o H.No.2047, Bowrampet village,
Quthbullapur mandal, R.R.Dist.

9. Smt.P.Veda Priya W/o SriP.Rajesh,

Aged about 23 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Flat No.204. Kalyan Towers,
Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

10. J.Laxmi Kumari W/o Mallikarjuna Rao

Aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.855, Pragathinagar, Opp. JNTUC
Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

11. Sri Narareddygari Veera Reddy,

S/o late Sri N.Hanumanth Reddy,
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.2047, Bowrampet village,
Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajigiri dist.

12. Banda Srinivas Rao S/o .Bhupathi,

Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Qr.No.B-11/112, PTS NTPC, Jyothinagar
Karimnagar Dist.

13. Kasarla Ravinder Reddy S/o K.Narayan

Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.14-1-124, Venurao Colony
Warangal.

14. Kariveda Srinivasa Reddy S/o K.Agareddy,

Aged about 44 years, Occ:Business,
R/o Flat No.402, Sunshine Residency,
 25

Gangaram, Huda Colony, Chandanagar,

Hyderabad.

15. Smt.Ramreddy Pushpa W/o R.R.Satyanarayna

Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ. House wife,
R/o Qr.No.B4/43/PTS-NTPC, Jyothinagar,
Karimnagar.

16. Pachika Aruina Sri W/o P.Sammireddy,

Aged about 52 years, Occ: Housewife,
Qr.No.B7/148/PTS-NTPC, Jyothinagar,
Karimnagar.

17. Smt.Buddineni Usha Devi W/o B.Janardhan,

Aged about 55 years, Occ:Housewife.
R/o Qr.No.B7/170/PTS-NTPC, Jyothingar,
Karimnagar.

18. Chittaboina Bhasker S/o Ch.Pochalu,

Aged about 52 years, Occ: Service
R/o Qr.No.B7/176/PTS-NTPC, Jyothinagar
Karimnagar.

19. Chittaboina Renuka W/o Ch.Bhasker,

Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Qr.No.B7/176/PTS-NTPC, Jyothinagar
Karimnagar.

20. Banda Sathayanarayana S/o B.Bhupathi Rao,

Aged about 48 years, Occc:Agriculture,
R/o H.No.4-2-161, Annapurna Colony,
NTPC, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar dist.

21. Naini Malla Reddy S/o N.Raji Reddy,

Aged about 65 yeares, Occ: Service,
R/o Qr.No.B9/131/PTS-NTPC, Jyothinagar,
Karimnagar.

22. Aluguvelli Anasurya S/o A.Seetharamreddy,

Aged about 52 years, Occ: House Wife,
R/o H.No.A.3, Gowthamnagar, FCI,
Ramagundam, Karimnagar Dist.

23. Smt.Marni Sujatha W/o Sri Marni Srinivas

Murthy, aged about 31 years, Housewife,
R/o Flat No.3508, Panchavathi Complex,
Pragathinagar, Qutbullapur mandal,
 26

Rangareddy Dist.

24. Smt.Putta Sailaja Kumari D/o P.Pedda

Veerababu, aged about 28 years,
Pvt.Job, R/o /flat no.3208, Panchavati
Apartments, Pragathinagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad-500072.

25. VedarathamKrishnamacharlu S/o

V.Ramanujacharlu, aged about 83 years,
Rtd.Govt. Employeee, R.o H.No.195,
Panduranganagar, Moti nagar, Hyderabad.

26. Smt.Vedartham Sathyavathi W/o

V.Krishnamacharylu, aged about 79 years
R/o H.No.9-195, Panduranga Nagar,
Motinagar, Hyderabad.

27. Chitturi Prasada Rao S/o Chitturi Suryarao,

Aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Vakil Farm Village, Varini mandal,
Nizamabad dist.

28. Samakura Elsihamma W/o S.Narasimha

Reddy, aged about 55 years, Housewife,
R/o 5-44/2, Chaitanya Nagar, Kumatpally,
Rep., by GPA Holder D.Karun Krishna
S/o late D.Rama Krishna, aged about
33 yers, OccL Business, R/o Flat No.204,
Kalayan Towers, Hyder Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad.500072.

29. Harsha Priya Mutyala D/o Subbaral Mutyala,

Aged about 31 years, Pvt.Employee,
R/o Plot No.1398, Pragathinagar, Bachupally,
Medchal-Malkajgiri dist.

30. Smt.Komatineni Sitartavamma W/o

K.Venkateshwararao Chowdary, aged
About 54 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.2-4-31/4C, Road No.1
Snehapuri Colony, S.R.K.Puram,
Dilsuknagar Hyderabadd-500035.

31. Sri Ari Sivaramakrishnaiah S/o

Ari Venkateswara, aged about 84 years,
R/o Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kakumanu,
Guntur Dist.522112.

32. Smt.M.Padmavathi W/o late M.Satyanarana

 27

Murthy, aged about 56 years, Occ: Houwseofe,

R/o Flat No.1504, Panchavarti Complex,
Pragathinagar, Qutubullapur mandal, RR Dist.

33. Narsareddygari Krishna Reddy S/o

N.Veerareddy, aged about 21 years,
R/o H.No.2047, Bowrampet village,
Dundigal mandal, Malkajigiri Dist.

34. Paladugu Varshasri D/o P.Rajesh,

Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Flat No.204, Kalyani Towers,
Hydernagar, Kukatally, R.R dist.

35. K.Srinivsas Reddy S/o Late K.Rajireddy,

aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.2-28, Nizampete village,
Qutubullapur mandal, Rangareddy dist

36. Mrs.Kapakayala Parvathi W/o

K.Venkateswara Rao, aged 69 years,
Occ: HouseWife, R/o H.No.12-199,
Adarshnagar, Opp. IDPL Colony,
Hyderabad.

37. Raguram Thirupathi Reddy S/o Late

R.Venkat Reddu,. Aged about 41 years,
R/o H.No.3-3-9-P4, Park View Residency
Satyam Heights, Rajeev Gandhinagar,
Bachupally, Quthubullapur mandal,
Rangareddy Dist 500090.

38. Smt.Patibandla Rathamma W/o

Sri P.Sudhakarrao, aged about 37 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.1-2-144,
Pragathinagar, Peddapalli village
And mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

39. J.Mallikarjun Rao S/o J.Satyanarayan,

Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Plot No.855, Flat No.G1, Satyam
Residency, Pragathinagar, Qutubullapur
Mandal, Rangareddy Dist.

40. Smt.Vallepalli Saroja W/o Sri V.Saryanarayana,

Aged about 36 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o Flat No.G-1, Aditya Avenue, behind
Raghavareddy Garden, Nizampet Road,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
 28

41. P.Surendhar Reddy S/o Late P.Mangareddy,

Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.2067, Bowrampet village,
Quthubullapur mandal, Rangareddy Dist.,
Rep., by GPA holdler M.Guravaiah Naidu,
S/o Sri M.Ramaswamy, aged about 52 years,
Occ:Business, R/o H.No.358,
Vivekanandanagar
Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...Respondents 1-41/
Appellants 1-41

42. The State of Telangana, rep., by its

Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms,
Medchal-Malkajgiri dist. …Respondent /R-1

43. The Special Grade Deputy Collector,

And Revenue Divisional Officer-
Cum-LRT, Malkajgiri division,
Medchal Malkajigiri dist. …Respondent/R-2

PETITION FILED UNDER RULE15(4) OF TELANGANA STATE LAND

REFORMS (COAH) RULES, 1974 r/w SECTION 151 OF CPC

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to vacate the Interim Stay Order dated 10-3-
2021 passed in I.A.No. 220 of 2021 in LRA No.4 of 2021 and to pass such
other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

Date: 29-9-2021,
Place : L.B.Nagar. Counsel for the Petitioners/
Respondents No. 3 to 5
29

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN THE

HON’BLE L.R.A.T-CUM- II
ADDL.DIST & SESSIONS
JUDGE:R.R.DISTRICT
AT:L.B.NAGAR

I.A No. OF 2022

IN
LRA .No 4 OF 2021

Between:
K.Venkatramaiah(Died)
Per LRs & 02 others
…Petitioners/
Respondents 3 -5

AND

Mr.Chitturi SriHari
And 42 Others ..Respondents/
Appellants/
Respondent 1-2

PETITION FILED UNDER RULE16 (4)

OF TELANGANA STATE LAND
REFORMS (COAH) RULES, 1974 r/w
SECTION 151 OF CPC

Filed On:

Filed By:

M/s .Akkapeddi Srinivas,

M.Manoj Kumar
J.Nagaraja Rao, Advocates,
Flat # 506, Mandadi Mansion
SBH Colony, Saidabad
Hyderabad - 59, Cell:9652920888
Email:[email protected]

Counsel for Petitioners 1 to 3/

Respondents 3-5
 30

MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 5

May It Please Your Honour,

IN THE COURT OF THE

CHAIRMAN-LRAT-CUM-
II.ADDL.DISTGRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
AT L.B.NAGAR

I.A.No.220 of 2021 & I.A.No. 643 of

2021
In

L.R.A.No. 4 of 2021

Mr.Chitturi Sri Hari and Othe

…Petitioners/Appellants

AND
31

The State of Telangana

Rep.by its Special Tahsildar
Land Reforms and 4 Others
…Respondents/Respondents

MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 5

Filed On: 23-9-2022

Filed By:

M/s .Akkapeddi Srinivas, (AP/119/1993)

V.Manoj Kumar
J.Nagaraja Rao, Advocates,

Flat # 506, Mandadi Mansion SBH

Colony, Saidabad Hyderabad - 59,
Cell:9652920888
Email:[email protected]

Counsel for Respondents 3-5