THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23506 of 2002 Date:14.07.2010 Between: Namala Subhash and others. ………..Petitioners. And The District Collector, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23506 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are three in number with a prayer to issue Mandamus declaring the action of the District Collector, Hyderbaad- 1st respondent in allotting the premises No.1-2-606/82 admeasuring 300 Square Yards consisting of four mulgies with open land covered by compound wall with a gate situated at Bandamaisamma Nagar near Indira Park, Domalaguda, Hyderabad to Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samstha, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad represented by its City Librarian & Secretary-3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are sons of Namala Narasappa. According to the petitioners, their father was the absolute owner and possessor of plot admeasuring 300 square yards situated at Domalaguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1973. After the purchase, their father constructed four mulgies towards road side and a small store room in the rear side of the land and also constructed a compound wall with a gate. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has given house number as 1-2-606/82. When the MCH authorities attempted to evict and demolish the constructions in the premises; Namala Rama Krishna, who is the eldest son of Narasappa, filed W.P.No.33819 of 1998 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 3.12.1998 directing that the petitioner therein cannot be evicted from the premises except in accordance with law. While so one K.Ramachander filed a suit being O.S.No.5899 of 1998 on the file of VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the District Collector, Hyderabad and Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad for injunction claiming the property. The said suit ended in dismissal on 20.11.2001. When the petitioners came to know that the 3rd respondent was contemplating to take possession of the entire property on the ground that the 1st respondent allotted the said premises to it, they issued telegraphic notice dated 9.11.2002 to the 3rd respondent. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued a reply dated 12.11.2002 stating that the 1st respondent had allotted the said property for construction of library to it. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India with the prayer stated supra. Rule nisi came to be issued on 26.11.2002. The respondents entered appearance though a counsel. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. Sri R.Madhusudan Reddy, Secretary, City Grandhalaya Samstha, Hyderabad has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathanagar Mandal handed over the physical possession of the Government land of 260 square meters with four rooms (10’x 12’ each) to Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samstha on 30-11-1998 within the following boundaries: “East: Building No.1-2-606; West: 20’ Wide Road; North: 1-2-606/83; South: H.No.1-2-606/81/A.” It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samstha is in continuous physical possession of site and running a Branch Library. Para No.7 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “It is pertinent to bring to the kind notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad that one Namala Ramakrishna S/o.Late Namala Narsappa and his brothers (names of his brother were not mentioned in the legal notice) resident of 10- 1/2 Dwarakapuram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad have got issued a legal notice dated 9-11- 2002 through their advocate alleging that they are the absolute owners of the premises bearing o.1-2-606/82 admeasuring 300 square yards consisting of four malgies covered by compound wall with a gate at Bandamaisamma Nagar Near Indira Park, Hyderabad, having purchased the property through registered sale deed and also stated that the Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samstha are trying to construct a Library Building in the said private property and advise to stop construction or else legal action follows. It is submitted that reply to the above legal notice was given by the Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samstha through letter Rc.No.2-A4/98 dated 12-11-2002 to the effect that the said clients in question have claimed ownership over the allotted Government Land for the first time under the alleged documents, the said clients have intentionally avoided to give full description of their land, its boundaries date of its registration sale document numbers, the name of the actual owners from whom they have purchased the Government Land allotted to the Samstha for running the branch library LIC Colony in Himayatnagar Mandal etc. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 and learned counsel appearing for R3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners namely; Narasappa purchased 250.8 square yards under registered sale deed dated 10.4.1973 from Smt. V.P.Shanta alias Shanthamma W/o.Bhaskar, who in turn purchased the said plot from Md.Murtuza Khan. After the death of Narsappa, the petitioners are being his legal heirs got the house property by way of inheritance. A further submission has been made that the respondents 1 & 2 have no right to allot the property of the petitioners to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel refers the photocopy of the sale deeds dated 10.4.1973 & 3.3.1966. I have gone through the schedule mentioned in the above referred sale deeds. In the sale deed dated 3.3.1966, the property covered therein has been described as hereunder: “Plot of land bearing No.1, measuring 300 square yards or 250.80 sq.yads under Survey No.256, within municipal limit, situated at Bagh Linigampally, Domalaguda, Hyderabad, A.P., which is surrounded between the boundaries hereunder: “On the north by : Vendor’s land On the south by : Vendor’s land On the east by : Vendor’s land On the west by : Netha mills.”” The description of the property covered under the sale deed dated 10.4.1973 is stated as hereunder: “All that Plot of Land with basement as shown in Red Colour in the plan annexed herewith measuring (300) sq.yds. or Say (250.8) sq.meters situated at Bagh Lingampally, Domalaguda, Hyderabad A.P. surrounded between the boundaries mentioned hereunder: “North: by House No.1-2-606/83; South: by house No.1-2-606/81 of B.Laxmamma. East: Neighbour’s House; and West: Road 20ft wide;”” The 3rd respondent claims the allotment of open site of 260 square meters with four rooms (10’ x 12’ each) to Hyderabad City Grandhalaya Samtha on 30.11.1998 within the following boundaries: “East: Building No.1-2-606; West: 20’ Wide Road; North: H.No.1-2-606/83; South: H.No.1-2-606/81/A.” A conjoint reading of the description given in the three documents indicates, prima facie, that the site covered under these documents is not one and the same. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners assert that the property covered under these three documents as one and the same, they are at liberty to establish the same by approaching Civil Court. Reserving the said liberty to the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 26.11.2002 shall continue for a period of sixty days so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary orders. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:14.7.2010 mrb