THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.342 of 2008 29.1.2010 Between: Peerzada Syed Ibrahim Ali, S/o.Peerzada Syed Amer Ali And others … Appellants AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.342 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The plaintiffs are the appellants. They instituted the suit being O.S.No.798 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.15.00 in survey No.1/3 situated at Raviryala village of Maheswaram Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. They also filed I.A.No.2107 of 2007 for ad interim injunction. The same was dismissed on 28.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The case of the appellants before the Court below is as follows. Under the agreement of sale, dated 21.8.1981, plaintiffs 1 to 3 purchased suit schedule property from original owners. They filed necessary application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Maheswaram, seeking regularization under Section 5A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act, for brevity). By proceedings dated 19.3.1996, MRO granted regularization and issued certificates in Form XIII-B (Ex.P2). In furtherance thereof, plaintiffs 1 to 3 are obtained pattadar pass books (PPBs) and title deeds (TDs), marked as Ex.P3, and also got their names mutated in the pahanis (Ex.P5). Subsequently under a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 28.12.2006 (Ex.P1), plaintiffs 1 to 3 sole the property to plaintiffs 4 and 5 and possession was also delivered. When the possession of plaintiffs 4 and 5 was disturbed, all the plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.276 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The same was decreed on 02.8.2007 (Ex.P8). Thereafter, defendants 4 and 5 in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 tried to dispossess plaintiffs and hence they filed the suit. In the interlocutory application filed defendants 1 to 3 were not arrayed as parties. Defendants 4 and 5 contested the matter. In the counter affidavit, they alleged that the land in survey No.1 is Kancha Imarath, admeasuring Acs.4,076.20 guntas, was acquired by Government of Andhra Pradesh along with other Kanchas to an extent of Acs.15,964.25 guntas from the Nizam of Hyderabad under Land Acquisition Act 1894, by the Collector, Hyderabad vide Gazette Notification dated 15.3.1956 (Ex.R8). Therefore plaintiffs have no manner of right. Out of total extent of land in survey No.1, Acs.4,076.20 guntas was handed over to Large Scale Sheep Breeding Farm under Department of Animal Husbandry. Subsequently an extent of Acs.2,094 was alienated to Research Centre Imarath and an extent of Acs.250.00 was given to RSFPD in 1972. Another extent of Acs.100.00 was given to APSEB and an extent of Acs.1,565.00 was alienated to fourth defendant for development of hardware park. The allegation that the plaintiffs are in possession was denied. The documents relied on by the plaintiffs like Regularisation proceedings, PPBs/TDs etc., were disputed alleging that they were created and fabricated in collusion with MRO, Maheswaram. The rival parties marked Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.R1 to R8, to which a reference is already made. Considering this evidence, the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case with regard to their title and possession and accordingly dismissed the application. Learned Counsel for plaintiffs/appellants submits that as long as Exs.P2, P3 and P5 are not cancelled, inference drawn by the Court below that petitioners have no prima facie title and balance of convenience is erroneous. He also relies on Ex.P8, decree in O.S.No.276 of 2007, and contends that plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property. Though notice is served on respondents 4 and 5 (defendants 4 and 5), none appears for them. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 allegedly purchased suit schedule property under an unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.8.1981. They got it regularized under Section 5A of RoR Act and obtained Ex.P2 Form XIII-B. Needless to mention that they also obtained Ex.P3 PPBs and Ex.P5 Pahanis. There cannot be any dispute that Exs.P3 and P5 are based on Ex.P2. Admittedly, Special Deputy Collector initiated enquiry into the allegations of fraud and collusion committed by MRO and by Ex.R1 suspended Ex.P2. The enquiry is still pending. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot rely on Exs.P2, P3 and P5. If these are excluded, it is difficult to hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated their prima facie case. The reliance placed on Ex.P8 decree is also misconceived. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.276 of 2007 against M/s.Shanker Goud and Abdulla Bil Ali Bin Aziz Al-Kaseri and none of the defendants in the present suit are parties thereto. Therefore, Ex.P8 is not a document, which would clinchingly show that plaintiffs have prima facie title and possession with them. On the contrary, a perusal of Ex.R8 Gazette Notification would show that entire extent of land of about Acs.4,076.20 guntas in survey No.1 Kancha Imarath is acquired by the Government. In addition to this, defendants also marked Exs.R6 and R7, which would show that the Government always exercised their rights as owners either in alienating the property to others or in dealing with the property in different manner. In view of this, we do not find any error in the impugned order. We request that the suit be disposed of by the Court below within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) January 29, 2010 YS