IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24870 of 2007 Between: Smt. Abeda Begum, W/o. Late Moid Omer, R/o.H.No. 5-6-246/3, Agapura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Chief City Planner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Assistant City Planner, Charminagar, Hyderabad. 4 Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, 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 may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing and dispossessing the petitioner from about 10 sq. yards of land in the premises bearing Nos. 22-5-280 and 22-5- 281 situate at Kali Kaman, Guljar House, Hyderabad, which is not covered by the land acquisition proceedings and award No. A/220/2007 dt. 27-8-2007 passed by the 4th respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of Sections 146 and 157 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act as well as Land Acquisition Act apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess or demolish the said premises without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ALI FAROOQUE Counsel for the Respondents: MR. R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.Abeda Begum assailing the action of the respondents in demolishing and dispossessing her from about 10 sq. yards of land in the premises bearing Nos.22-5-280 and 22-5-281 situated at Kali Kaman, Guljar House, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of two Mulgies bearing Nos.22-5-280 and 22-5-281 situated at Kali Kaman, Guljar House, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.2002. The Mulgies are stated to be located in a prime business area of Charminar, Hyderabad. The Respondents-Corporation acquired 25.12 sq. yards by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in road widening. An Award came to be passed with regard to 25.12 sq. yards in respect of the two Mulgies. Some other properties are also subject matter of the award enquiry. There seems to be dispute with regard to the apportionment of compensation and therefore, the matter came to be referred to the civil Court. When the respondents attempted to demolish the two Mulgies without following the due process of law, the petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.4086 of 2006. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 02.03.2006 directing the respondents not to demolish the premises of the petitioner or dispossess her without following the due process of law either under Sections 146 or 147 of the Act or by way of private negotiations or by initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents acquired 25.12 sq. yards by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The left over portion of the two mulgies, according to the petitioner, is about 10 sq. yards. When the respondents are contemplating to demolish the existing constructions in the said 10 sq. yards, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 23.11.2007. An interim direction also came to be issued on the same day vide WPMP No.32406 of 2007. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit and also moved WVMP No.729 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim stay granted in WPMP No.32406 of 2007. 4. Mohd.Khalid Sarwar, Assistant City Planner, Circle No.1, GHMC, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. It is stated in the counter- aﬃdavit that as per T.S.L.No.76/3, the two Mulgies are located in an area admeasuring 25.12 sq. yards equivalent to 21 sq. meters and the remaining land belongs to Government which stood vested with municipality and that the petitioner has encroached the said extent. For better appreciation, I may refer para.2 of the counter-affidavit and it reads as hereunder: “In reply to Para.2 of the Affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is put to strict proof of her ownership and possession over the property of two mulgies bearing No.22-5-280 & 22-5-281, Gulzar House, Hyderabad. The petitioner is further put to strict proof that she meeting out her livelihood from out of the rents received in respect of the above said two mulgies. The allegation of the Petitioner that two mulgies are admeasuring 35 sq. yards is absolutely false and denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted as per TS Record No.76/3, the above two mulgies are admeasuring only 25.12 sq.yards (equivalent to 21. sq. mtrs, as per the site measurement the side area is 26.29 sq.yards i.e. 22.40 sq. mtrs.) and not 35 sq. yards as alleged by the Petitioner. The remaining excess land is GVM land which the Petitioner has encroached. It is pertinent to submit here that as per the records of this Respondent Corporation, the above property still stands in the name of Md.Salim and not in the name of the Petitioner. The petitioner has created false documents for the purpose of perfecting her title on the encroached GVM land. The petitioner may be directed to produce the link documents in support of her claim.” 5. When the vacate stay petition came up consideration, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel of GHMC appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased two Mulgies admeasuring 35 sq. yards under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.2002 and her vendor got the two Mulgies under a Gift Settlement Deed, dated 22.07.1994. He further submits that Malan Bee, who executed the gift settlement deed, dt.22.07.1994, got the property under a registered document No.19 of 1968 executed by Murad Khatoon and 5 others. Learned counsel took me to the copy of the document No.19 of 1968 whereunder the executant viz., Murad Khatoon and 5 others stated to have purchased the Mulgies through a registered sale deed vide document No.202 of 1358 Fasli. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner being an agreement holder is not entitled to question the action of the respondents. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Gajbinkar Arjun v. Siddipet Municipality[1]. A further submission has been made that the 10 sq. yards left over after demolition of the Mulgies are part and parcel of the G.V.M. land and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to assail the proposed action of the respondents. 9. The petitioner is able to place on record, prima facie, that the total area occupied by two Mulgies is 35 sq. yards. It has been in occupation of the private parties right from 1358 Fasli. The petitioner claims to have purchased the two Mulgies admeasuring 35 sq. yards under an agreement of sale dated 18.09.2002. It is a matter of record that out of 35 sq. yards, 25.12 sq. yards have been acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondents Corporation. The dispute is with regard to the 10 sq. yards. According to the petitioner, the 10 sq. yards is a private property and whereas the respondents Corporation contend that it is a G.V.M. land. A serious title dispute exists between two parties and the proper forum to settle the dispute is the civil Court. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to establish her right over the 10 sq. yards i.e. the southern portion of the two Mulgies bearing Nos.22-5-280 and 22-5-281 situated at Kali Kaman, Guljar House, Hyderabad in civil Court. The interim stay granted on 23.11.2007 vide WPMP No.32406 of 2007 shall remain in operation for a period of four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the civil Court and obtain necessary orders. The petitioner also shall not make any alterations with regard to the structures existing in 10 sq. yards as on this day. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:08th September, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. with two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} [1] 2008 (2) ALT 468