1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was registered suo moto by this Court upon receipt of a letter dated 27.05.2020 from Dr. Poladi Ramana Rao,
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Osmania University. The letter reads as under:
“Osmania University has a glorious past. It was established in the year 1917 by his Highness the last Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan. Since then the
university has produced numerous eminent scholars, intellectuals, bureaucrats, scientists, software engineers and renowned sports persons who have
brought laurels to the university at national and international level. It is not an exaggeration to claim that Osmanians have occupied top positions in their
chosen fields across the globe.
In this connection it is very unfortunate to bring to your notice that Osmania University in now in the clutches of land grabbing mafia.
Its geographic location (it is located in the heart of the city of Hyderabad) has become it’s curse. As it is a known fact that there exists a high
demand for real estate in and around the city limits, the land grabbing vultures have always had an eye on the university lands. There have been
countless instances where the university lands have been encroached for the past so many years.
One such incident is learnt to have taken place recently. The newspapers have brought to light the encroachment of around 8000 yards of valuable
land that belonged to the university. The kith and kin of the former Judge of High Court of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh are prime suspects in this issue.
It is learnt that the encroachers encroached the land with the help of police force. The lock down period imposed because of the outbreak of the
pandemic Covid-19 has become a blessing in disguise for the land mafia as there are no students to protest the encroachment. It is learnt that a
fencing has been erected around the encroached land. The news tabloids suspect the role of the university authorities in this heinous act.
It is very important to protect the public property. Hence, I request you to look into this matter and issue orders to evacuate the university premises. I
also request you to set up a commission and issue orders to the commissioner land revenue department to re-survey the Osmania university lands.â€
2. Upon registration of PIL, this Court passed the following order on 29.12.2021:
“In the present case, the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 reflects that M/s. Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short,
“the societyâ€) was the owner of the land admeasuring 4800 square yards only and the society has sold the land in the year 1979 and 1980. The
entire land was sold by the society leaving one plot, which was earmarked for a park, admeasuring 267 square yards. The reply further reveals that
the society in spite of the fact that the entire land, which the society was the owner, was sold, again executed sale deeds in the year 2001 and 2002 in
respect of 3296 square yards.
This Court fails to understand as to how a society, which was exclusive owner of 4800 square yards of land, after selling the same, can again sell 3296
square yards of land. The situation needs a clarification. Therefore, let a notice be issued to M/s. Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society Limited
informing the date of hearing.
List on 20.01.2022.
It is however made clear that there shall be no construction of any kind over the plots in questions.â€
3. We have heard Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana for respondent No.1; Mr. A.Santhosh Kumar, learned
Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for respondent Nos.2 to 5; Mr. S.Lakshmikanth, learned Standing Counsel
for Osmania University for respondent Nos.7 & 8; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.10 & 11; and Mr.
T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.12.
4. As the PIL proceeded further, appearance was made on behalf of M/s. Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society Limited. Finally on 14.06.2022, this
Court passed the following order:
“No reply has been filed by M/s. Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short “the Society), in spite of last opportunity granted on
12.04.2022.
This Court has already granted an interim order in the present case on 29.12.2021 and the facts of the case reveal that the Society was the owner of
land admeasuring 4800 square yards only and the entire land was sold by the Society in 1979 and 1980. The Society, in spite of the fact that the entire
land admeasuring 4800 square yards except one plot admeasuring 267 square yards was sold, again executed sale deeds in the years 2001 and 2002 in
respect of 3296 square yards. Meaning thereby, prima facie, the land of the Osmania University was sold by the Society.
This Court has already granted interim order restraining construction of any kind over the plots in question and in spite of repeated opportunity, the
Society is not filing counter affidavit in the matter.
It has been stated that a crime has been registered in the matter.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the police authorities are certainly required to conclude the investigation and to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law.
Learned Advocate General shall file a Status Report within four weeks.
In the present case, the Society has marked its appearance before this Court though technically it is not a party. However, on account of order dated
29.12.2021, a notice was issued to the Society.
Therefore, M/s. Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society Limited be impleaded as respondent No.14 in the present writ petition.
It is however made clear that no construction activity nor any alienation of any kind in respect of the subject plots shall take place.â€
5. In the hearing today, Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate General appearing for Osmania University has submitted status report. He submits that upon
receipt of petition from the Registrar of Osmania University on 14.08.2020, a GD entry was made whereafter Crime No.153/2021 was registered
under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof with the Amberpet Police Station. On registration of
the crime, police took up investigation whereafter investigation has been completed. Now charge sheet has been filed in the Court of IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad where Calender Case number is awaited.
6. Learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to the charge sheet so filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C). We find therefrom that the investigation was carried out by Mr. N.Venkata Ramana, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet Division,
Hyderabad. The following five persons have been named as accused in the charge sheet:
“A-1 : T Somachary s/o T Narahari aged 51 yrs Govt Service r/o H.No.203018/14 Tulasinagar, Amberpet Hyderabad (Died)
A-2 : Y Phani Raj s/o. Y V Subbarao r/o 2-2-
647/185/4 Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad (Died)
A-3 : L Jithender Reddy s/o Lakshman Reddy occ:
Software Engineer r/o 2-2-25/3/3 BVagh Amberpet, Hyderabad now in United States of America.
(Notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C. issued through Whatsapp on 11-07-2022 on +1(201)3567088)
A-4 : K Raghava Charyulu s/o K N Charyulu, occ: Advocate 1-8-702/34/2 Ushodaya Park, Padma colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad (Ph:9494367888)
(Notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C. issued through Whatsapp on 21-07-2022 on +919494367888)
A-5 : Md Abdul Hai s/o Abdul Salam occ: business r/o 5-3-960, M J Market, Hyderabad (Notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C. issued on 06-07-2022)â€
7. After referring to the case history which unfolded in the course of the investigation, the charge sheet concludes as under:
“As evident from the present President and Secretary (L.Ws.5 and 6) the accused No.1 has no authorization and Society never authorized him to
execute any documents. Hence, it is clear that A1 to A5 colluded each other taking advantage of the survey report which was different and distinct
and deliberately executed 9 documents by A1 for which A2 to A5 stood as witnesses and thereby indulged in sale of 3296 sq yds for which they do
not have any right or title knowing fully in order to cause wrongful loss to the Osmania University and also 9 individual genuine purchasers.
Notice U/s 41A Cr.PC. issued to A â€" 3 who is presently residing in United States of America has been served through Whatsapp on 11-07-
2022 on his mobile number +1(201)3567088. Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C., to A-4 who is not available at the local address has been served
through Whatsapp on 21-07-2022 on his mobile number +919494367888 and the same was also informed him over phone on 29-07-2022.
Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C., has been issued to A-5 on 06-07-2022.
Thus, the accused A1 to A5 committed following offences:
à A1 to A5 wrongfully conspired together to grab 3296 sq yds of lands of Osmania Univesrity taking advantage of the Survey Report knowingfully
that the Court Judgment is in respect of 4800 sq yds and already 14 sale deeds executed in respect of the said land and that there is no land in the
name of M/s Tulasi Coop Housing Society deliberately indulged in grabbing of 3296 sq yds of land and thereby committed offence punishable u/
120(B) IPC. Further A2 to A5 signed as witnesses in the 9 sale deeds executed by the accused No.1 knowingfully that there is no land only in
order to grab the land.
à A-1 Somachary knowingfully that document no.737/1976 dt 30.10.1975 executed by Capt Habeeb Hussain in respect of 4800 sq yds in sy.no.80/2,
Bagh Amberpet related 14 documents already executed by M/s Tulasi Coop Housing Society represented by Sri J Subramanyam, President and
knowingfully there is no land of 4800 sq yds as already sold, again used the same document as genuine document in collusion with A2 to A5 and
executed 9 sale deeds to an extent of 3296 sq yds and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
à A-1 Somachary knowingfully that he is not at all authorized by the M/s Tulasi Coop Housing Society deliberately claimed as authorized person and
executed 9 sale deeds in sy.no.80/2 Bagh Amberpet admeasuring 3296 sq yards in collusion with A2 to A5 and thereby committed impersonation
punishable u/s 419 IPC.
à A-1 Somachary in collusion with A2 to A5 executed 9 sale deeds in an extent of 3296 sq yds causing wrongful loss to the Osmania University and
also to the purchasers and for his wrongful gain and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
The offences u/s 120(B), 471, 419 IPC have been established against the accused persons, hence, the section of law 120(B), 471, 419 IPC have been
added to the existing section law. A section deletion memo is enclosed for the perusal of Hon’ble Court.
The offence u/s 409 IPC is not established against the accused persons, hence, the section of law 409 IPC is deleted from the existing section law. A
section deletion memo is enclosed for the perusal of Hon’ble Court.
In this case A - 1 : T Somachary and A â€" 2 : Y Phani Raj expired. Hence action stands abated against them.
A letter to Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad has been sent to survey and demarcate OU land at the disputed site. A
supplementary charge sheet will be filed after receipt of survey report from concerned agency.
Hence, it is prayed that the Honourable court may kindly try the accused A3 to A5 as per law.â€
8. From a perusal of the charge sheet, we find that on complaint lodged by the Osmania University, land grabbing case being L.G.C(SR).No.1784 of
2008 was registered. This led to filing of number of writ petitions by interested parties wherein various orders have been passed by Single Benches of
this Court.
9. Be that as it may, now that the law has been set in motion and charge sheet has been filed before the competent Criminal Court, it would not be
proper on our part to sit over the proceedings of the competent Criminal Court as law will take its own course. Further, several writ petitions are
pending.
10. We do not express any opinion either on the contentions made in the charge sheet or on any aspects of the matter and leave it to the respective
Courts â€" Civil, Criminal or Writ to deal with the matters in accordance with law. All defences as per law would be available to all the parties.
11. Before parting with the record, we make it clear that earlier orders of this Court are to be construed only for the purpose of considering the issue
raised in the PIL.
12. This disposes of the Writ Petition (PIL). However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition (PIL) shall stand closed.
