IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16135 of 2006 Between: Smt.B.Shoba Rani, W/o.B.Dharma Reddy, R/o.3-4-1005/5/A& B Plot No.3, Barkatpura, Juderabad, Rep by her GPA Holder Ch.Madhava Reddy, S/o.Chokka Reddy, 59 Yrs, Business, R/o.Habsiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, Burgala Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Rep by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayat Nagar Mandal, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to LGC No.35 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and quash the Judgment dated 14-6-2006 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ, Order or direction of the like nature and pass such other orders as necessary in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.AJAY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUNE WRIT PETITION NO : 16567 of 2006 Between: 1 G.Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late G.Penta Reddy 2 G.Gopal Reddy, S/o.Late Rama Krishna Reddy 3 G.Parasuram Reddy, S/o.Late G. Rama Krishna Reddy 4 G.Raja Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Late G. Rama Krishna Reddy 5 G.Vittal Reddy, S/o.Late G. Rama Krishna Reddy 6 Smt.Sadhu Laxmamma W/o. Late Naga Mallaiah, ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayatnagar Mandal, .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to order dated 14.6.2006 in LGC No.37 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari and consequently restrain the respondent from taking any steps pursuant thereto including eviction of the petitioners from the land admeasuring 390.50 Sq.mtrs in T.S.No.2, Block 'D' Ward No.185, Baghlingampally village, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 16571 of 2006 Between: 1 Sri Shiv Kumar, S/o. K.D. Dalmia, H.No.3-4-1005/5/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Vaijayanthi Dalmia, W/o. Sri Shiv Kumar, H.No.3-4-1005/5/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 Sri manoj Dalmia, S/o.K. D. Dalmia, H.No.3-4-1005/5/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. Uma Dalmia, W/o.Sri Manoj Dalmia, H.No.3-4-1005/5/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Court under, A.P.Land Grabbing ( Prohibition) Act, rep. by its Registrar. 2 The mandal Revenue Officer, himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the ﬁrst respondent in L.G.C.No.36 of 2000 and to quash the order dated 14.6.2006 and consequently set aside the judgment passed by the ﬁrst respondent and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER :: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.16135, 16571 & 16567 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) These three writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 14-6-2006 passed in LGC Nos.35, 36 & 37 of 2000 respectively, on the ﬁle of 1 st respondent-The Special Court constituted under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ‘for short, ‘the Special Court’. The respondents in the said LGC cases are the writ petitioners herein. Since all these matters are connected, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of adjudication of these cases, the facts in WP No.16135 of 2006 are dealt with. 2. The State, represented by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad-respondent herein ﬁled the above said LGCs cases against the writ petitioners. The subject matter of dispute in all these three LGCs viz. 35, 36 and 37 of 2000 consists of an extent of 684.50 Sq. Mtrs. In TS No.3, 465.40 Sq. Mtrs. in TS Nos.4/P and 5 and 390.50 Sq. Mtrs. in TS No.2 situated in Baghlingampally Village, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, for short, ‘subject property’. It was stated that the subject property is a Government land as per the records and neither the petitioners herein nor their predecessors-in-title have any right, title what so ever and they have illegally occupied the subject property without any right or legal entitlement. That as per the Government records, the subject property is classiﬁed as Government ‘Abadi’ vacant land and as the petitioners are in illegal occupation, the applicant- respondent herein sought for their eviction. 3. The facts stated are that as per the revenue records, Baghlingampally Village was a Jagir Village and after the abolition of the Jagirs under the Jagir Abolition Act, the said village was merged into Diwani and was included in Hyderabad. That during the year 1965-76, a town survey was conducted in Baghlingampally Village and the ﬁnal notiﬁcation under Section 13 of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, was issued and published in the District Gazette No.53, dated 14-11-1977 in respect of the subject property. That in respect of the Government lands, notices have been issued to the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban, and in respect of landed properties and constructions, individual notices have also been issued, before ﬁnal publication. It was stated that as per the records, neither the petitioners herein nor their predecessors in title have ﬁled any civil suit against the entries made in the TSLR, therefore, the said entries in the TSLR became ﬁnal and binding on all the persons including the petitioners and their vendors. It was stated that the applicant in the year 1999 made veriﬁcation of the subject property covered by these LGCs and found that the petitioners have illegally encroached the subject property. It was further the case of the applicant that the petitioners had fabricated the documents in respect of the subject property to show that they have purchased the said lands from the then City Improvement Board, which has been merged, and now called as AP Housing Board in the year 1960. It was further stated that on veriﬁcation of the records, the authorities of the AP Housing Board have informed the applicant that no such lands have been alienated or sold, as alleged by the petitioners herein, and therefore filed the LGCs seeking for the above said relief. 4. The LGCs were contested by the writ petitioners herein, inter alia, stating that the subject property was purchased for valuable consideration by means of a registered sale deed as long back as in 1960. In the instant writ petition, the subject property was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1960 and their vendor purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 20-8-1956 from the City Improvement Board, which was a limb of erstwhile Hyderabad State and, therefore, the Government, being the predecessor-in-title, cannot allege that the petitioners have grabbed the subject property. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have obtained necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and constructed houses and have been paying property tax. It was further stated that in the year 1984 the Special Tahsildar, Himayathnagar, demanded for payment of Non Agricultural Land Assessment Tax and after enquiry, the Tahsildar recognized them as lawful owners of the subject property. It was further the case of the petitioners that since 1969 they have been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the subject property, on which now houses are constructed. It was also stated that mere entries in the TSLR are not ﬁnal and binding on them. 5. In order to establish the case of the applicant- respondent herein, the applicant adduced both oral and documentary evidence covered under Ex.A-1 to A-9 and oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3. On behalf of the writ petitioners, RWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-43 were marked. 6. The Special Court by the impugned common order allowed the said LGCs, the operative portion of the order reads thus: “45. As the main issues are answered in favour of the applicant and as it was found that respondents are in possession of the property without any legal entitlement, it is declared that respondents in these three cases are land grabbers and they are liable for eviction. But it was established that all the respondents (petitioners herein) are in possession of the property since long time and they constructed houses and paying taxes, in view of the above established fact, the respondents in these LGCs are directed to approach the Government for regularization of their occupations with in a period of two months. On such applications of the respondents, as the applicant has not initiated action against all the persons in possession, in the interest of justice, the applicant-State, considering their occupation and enjoyment of the property since a long time, may take a liberal view in regularization of their occupation by collecting a reasonable value for the land. If the respondents failed to approach the Government within the period stipulated, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer concerned shall evict the respondents in these three LGCs from the application schedule land within two months after expiry of two months period ﬁxed above and submit compliance report to this Court as per Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act. Even, if the respondents fail to get favourable orders from the Government after submitting their applications, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer concerned shall evict the respondents from the application schedule land and submit compliance report to this Court.” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the impugned order passed by the Special Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the subject property is in continuous ownership, possession and enjoyment of the private individuals i.e. the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title and right from the year 1956, there is continuous ﬂow of title by execution of registered sale deeds, the Special Court ought not to have held the petitioners as land grabbers. It is stated that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been in continuous possession for more than 50 years, they have perfected title by adverse possession. Learned counsel further contended that, even otherwise, notice could be issued for the ﬁrst time in the year 1999 alleging that the petitioners have illegally encroached the subject property belonged to the Government. Learned counsel further contended that the Special Court allowed the LGC cases only based on the entries found in the TSLR records, whereas the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been in possession right from 1956 basing on the registered sale deeds, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decisions in SOGRA BEGUM vs. STATE OF AP 1, HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD. vs. COLLECTOR 2 & SREE PANCHA MURTHY CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. v. GOVT. OF AP3. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant-2nd respondent- MRO inasmuch as, established title and possession of the subject property by producing Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) Ex.A-2, according to which it was noted as Government abadi vacant land and also Ex.A-9 town survey record coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, the Special Court rightly held petitioners as land grabbers and, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. The matter rests on a narrow compass. The petitioners claim title to the subject property based on registered sale deeds right from 1956 and the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject property, whereas the case of the Government represented by the MRO-2nd respondent herein is that it belonged to the Government based on TSLR Ex.A-2 and Town Survey Record, Ex.A-9. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessors-in-title have purchased the subject property from the City Improvement Board, which was a limb of erstwhile Hyderabad State. The subject property is in their continuous ownership, possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their predecessors-in- title right from the year 1956 and there is continuous ﬂow of title in respect of the subject property by execution of registered sale deeds. Even according to the Government, the Town Survey was conducted during the years 1965-1976 and notiﬁcation under Section 13 of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act was issued and published in the District Gazette in the year 1977, but no notice was issued to the petitioners as per law. Permission for construction of houses on the subject property was also sanctioned under Exs.B-17, 22, 32, 41 by the MCH in the years 1986 and 1987. It is pertinent to note that though houses started coming up on the subject property from the year 1987, notices to the petitioners could be issued only in the year 1999 alleging that they have illegally encroached the land belonged to Government. The case of the applicant was that the subject property was noted as government abadi vacant land in the TSLR record and, therefore, vested with the Government, but non-rebuttal of the entries in the TSLR by the petitioners or by their predecessors-in-title will not vest the subject property with the Government. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in SOGRA BEGUM’s case (1 supra) at para 16 held thus: “16. Now coming to the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, under Section 4 the State Government has power to appoint survey oﬃcers. Under Section 5 the State Government may direct the survey of Government land or of any boundary of such land. Under Section 6 survey of the lands ordered under Section 5 has to be notiﬁed by survey officers. Then Section 9 (1) lays down that the survey oﬃcer shall have power to determine and record as undisputed any boundary in respect of which no dispute is brought to his notice. Section 9 (2) lays down that notice o every decision of the survey oﬃcer under Section 9 (1) shall be given in the prescribed manner to the registered holders of the lands the boundaries of which may be aﬀected by the decisions. Under Section 11, appeal against orders under Section 9 or 10 can be made. Section 12 lays down that an appeal under Section 11 can be made within three months from the date of service of notice under Section 9 or 10 and ﬁnally completion of demarcation has to be notiﬁed under Section 13. Under Section 14 a suit can be ﬁled within three years to establish rights claimed in respect of the boundary of the property surveyed. In the preset case since there was no notice under Section 9 (2) given to the plaintiﬀs’ predecessor in interest, Section 14 has no application.” 12. To the same eﬀect is the decision in SREE PANCHA MURTHY CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. (3 supra). In HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD’s case (2 supra), at para 20 it was held thus: “A bare reading of the scheme of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purpose of identiﬁcation of the lands and ﬁxation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detailed enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the land. It is neither the object nor the scheme the said Act. There is no presumption that every entry made in the TSLR shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved and in the case of entries made in the record of rights under the provisions of AP Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. It is not a record of right. There is no such provision in the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.” 13. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have constructed pucca houses after obtaining permission from the MCH and they have been paying property tax from the year 1972 onwards which is evidence from Exs.B-6, 29, and 40. The exhibits Exs.A-3 to A-8 produced by the applicant-2nd respondent-MRO are rough sketch of the subject property. Ex.A-1 is the copy of the gazette notiﬁcation and Ex.A-2 is the TSLR record and Ex.A-9 is the town survey record. It is settled proposition of law that entries in TSLR are not a conclusive proof of title of a land, but may at the most be taken as one of the factors in deciding the title. Survey is intended for identiﬁcation of lands and ﬁxation of boundaries and under the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, there is no provision contemplating enquiries to be made at the time of survey as regards to the right, title and interest of the persons in the land. The respondents admittedly have not issued any notice under the Act. 14. In the instant writ petitions, the original owner one Abdul Karim, S/o.Babu Kahn purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 20-8-1956 from the City Improvement Board by paying sale consideration, which was part of the erstwhile Hyderbad State and merged into AP Housing Board, so the Government being the predecessor-in- title cannot seek to declare the petitioners as land grabbers who are subsequent purchasers from the original owner. Further petitioners have obtained necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and constructed houses and have been paying property tax. In the year 1984 the Special Tahsildar, Himayathnagar, demanded for payment of Non Agricultural Land Assessment Tax and after enquiry, the Tahsildar recognized them as lawful owners of the said property. The sale deeds Exs.B-1, 2 3 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23,24, 26, 36, 38 indicate that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title are in continuous possession of the subject property. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioners cannot be declared as land grabbers, but are continuing in the subject property under proper title deeds having purchased the same from the City Improvement Board, now APHB, which is a Government organization. 15. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned common order dated 14-6-2006 passed by the Special Court in. LGC Nos.35, 36 & 37 of 2000 are hereby set aside. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 20th August, 2008 Nrg. 1 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 539 2 2001 (3) ALT 200 3 2000 (3) ALD 520