S. SRINIVASA RAO (Retired) 01 May 2011

Supreme Court Ruling wanted

I have purchased a small house building site 208 sq.yd on 20-12-1984 in Hayathnagar and it was registered by the Sub-Registrar(East) Hyderabad on the very same day. The Registered Sale Deed at S.No.7, clearly states that it was not a Govt. assigned land meant for SC and ST communities as per Act No.9 of 1977. However, the land was taken over by the Govt. in the year 2008 stating that it was Govt. assigned land. As Sub-Registrar being a Govt. Officer has registered it, my contention is that the Govt. should own the responsibility and compensate me as per the current market price or restore the land to me. The Govt. wanted to construct flats there under Rajiv Swagruha Corpn Ltd but the cash strapped Corpn scrapped its plans and the area is lying vacant.

WILL YOU PLEASE FORTIFY MY CASE WITH A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE POSITION EXPLAINED ABOVE. THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. HAS GIVEN A STATUS QUO BUT THE GOVT. COUNSEL FIRMLY STATED IN THE COUNTER THAT IT WAS GOVT. ASSIGNED LAND AND THE HON. JUDGE WAS INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE VIEW PUT FORTH BY THE GOVT. THE CASE IS COMING UP IN HIGH COURT FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14-6-11. PLEASE HELP ME TO QUOTE SOME APEX COURT RULING TO WIN THE CASE.

REPLY / REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNTER FILED BY THE GOVT. COUNSEL

The Counter did not touch upon even on a single fact highlighted

by the Petitioner. It has tried to subvert the judicial system by

distracting and diverting the attention from the truth.

As these facts can’t be countered, it has resorted to “beating around the bush” without commenting on the core issues.

The Counter has not refuted / contradicted / denied the facts mentioned by me from which it is not difficult to conclude that there exists no “rebuttal” against the facts mentioned by me.

(i) The truth of the matter is that in the instant case, the Central Govt. Counsel has verified all the records in Revenue Deptt. as well as in Sub-Registrarar’s Office and then only given Clearance Certificate to a BSNL Officer. Further, the Central Govt. Counsel in his Certificate has clearly mentioned that the plot has a valid and clear marketable title

(ii) Based on the clearance given, he was granted HBA in

two installments

(iii) The house was mortgaged to the ‘President of India’

(iv) He is paying House Tax since 2002-03 without any default

(v) Besides the above, about 80 people have constructed houses in the same Survey Number—44/1

The Counter has maintained stoic silence like a “sphinx” on the aforesaid vital issues and chosen to avoid them for which the reasons can very easily be guessed and not difficult to conclude
The two writs said to have been dismissed earlier might be due to failure to produce documentary evidence in support of the case
Now, in the light of “New Revelations” made by me

and also the documents as material evidence presented by me, the case may kindly be re-looked afresh and justice be done to me.

a) when the site was registered on 20-12-1984, it was not Govt. assigned land according to M.R.O. in his Affidavit to the A.P.H.R.C.

b) the MRO has informed it as Govt. assigned land only on

12-8-1991 to the Sub-Registrar (East), Hyderabad.

Therefore, the contention now held that it was Govt. assigned land at the time of purchase is totally false and untrue

c) the cash strapped Rajiv Swagruha Corportion Ltd to whom the land was allotted in the year 2008 has shelved / scrapped its plans to construct flats in Survey No.44/1

d) nearly 80 people have already constructed houses in the same Survey No.44/1

e) it is very close to Ramoji Film City and the current market price is Rs.6,500/- per sq.yd

6. If the land is assigned land as reported in the Counter then the question arises as to why and how did the Sub-Registrar had undertaken its Registration?

7. If the Sub-Registrar was hand in glove or in league with the land mafia, the State Govt. has to own its responsibility and is liable to pay compensation or provide alternate land besides exemplary punishment to the Sub-Registrar.

8. The Counter itself is contradictory from the sworn affidavit submitted by the District Registrar, Hyderabad to the A.P.H.R.C. For the inconsistent stand taken in the Counter, they can certainly be tried for “Perjury”.

9. There is no reason as to why an innocent Sr. Citizen like me should be victimized for buying a legal piece of land in my very own country shattering my plans to settle in Hyderabad after retirement from New Delhi.

10. When the State itself becomes a “Predator”, the only course left for the common man is to knock the door of the Court, but if justice is denied here too what fate is to befall him?