* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU + W.P. Nos.20537 and 19552 of 2004 % Dated 26-04-2005 # State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. … Petitioner Vs. $ Smt. Pramila Modi & Others … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No.20537 of 2004: The Advocate General ! Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr. Advocate, for Sri Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, Adv. ^ Counsel for Respondent 1 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004 : Sri. E. Manohar Sr. Advocate, for Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, Adv. ^ Counsel for Respondents 2 to 8 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr. Advocate, for Sri Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, Adv. ^ Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: G.P. for Revenue. ^ Counsel for Respondents 3 & 4 in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: G.P. for Home. < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1) 2000(4) ALD 126 (DB) 2) (2002) 3 SCC 258 3) (2004) 7 SCC 398 4) AIR 1955 SC 352 5) AIR 1962 SC 141 (V 49 C 25) 6) AIR 1989 SC 1809 7) AIR 1997 SC 2181 8) (1996) 6 SCC 223 9) 2001 (5) ALD 102 10) AIR 2004 SC 3894 11) 2002(5) ALT 370 (D.B.) 12) (2004) 1 SCC 287 13) 2001(3) ALT 200 14) (2003) 10 SCC 121 15) AIR 1964 SC 477 16) 1955 (1) SCR 250 C/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.20537 & 19552 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION No.20537 of 2004 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1) Smt. Prameela Modi, W/o Late Dr.C.L. Modi R/o D.No. 4-4-248, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 2) N. Krishna Mohan, S/o Saraiah, R/o D.No.15/A, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3) N. Varalakshmi, W/o Krishan Mohan, R/o D.No.15/A, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4) V.V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, S/o V.S.N. Murthy, R/o D.No.17/A, Road No.2, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 5) K. Vijaya Kumar, S/o Lakshminarayana, R/o D.No.51, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 6) Raavi Venkateshwara Rao, S/o Raavi Sobhanadeshwara Rao, C/o.Sobhana Theatre, Balanagar, Hyderabad. 7) M/s. Siva Sankar Real Estates, Plot No.32, Hindinagar, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Rep. by its M.D. Sri G.S.P.V. Veera Reddy. 8) D. Dinesh Kumar Reddy, S/o Dastagiri Reddy, C/o. Siva Sankar Real Estates, Plot No.32, Hindi Nagar, Panjagutta, 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the Hon'ble Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 Hyderabad, pertaining to L.G.C. No. 10 of 2002, dated 30-7-2004 and set aside the same, as the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare the respondents as land grabbers. WRIT PETITION No.19552 of 2004 Between: 1) Sri N. Krishna Mohan S/o Late Sri Saravaiah, aged about 62 years, Occ: Business R/o 6-3-802, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder Sri Raj Kumar Malpani S/o Sri Jagdish Prasad Malpani, aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-2-608/35 & 36, Gaffar Khan Colony, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2) M/s. Maheshwari Builders, a partnership firm having its Office at level - III, MPM-Mall, Abids, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Raj Kumar Malpani S/o Sri Jagdish Prasad Malpani, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.8-2-608/35 & 36, Gaffar Khan Colony, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1) The District Collector, Hyderabad, Office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad Mandal, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3) The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4) The Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Banjara Hills, 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 an order, direction of a writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 and 2 in trying to illegally dispossess the Writ Petitioners with the aid of Respondents No.3 and 4 from the property in Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3 , situated at Road No.1 and 3 junction, Nagarjuna Circle, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in respect of which the Petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor as held by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (P) Act, 1982 by Judgment, dated 30-07-2004, while dismissing L.G.C. No.10 of 2002 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the Petitioner No.1 and other owners, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No.20537 of 2004: The Advocate General. Counsel for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004: Sri E. Manohar, Sr. Advocate for Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, Adv. Counsel for Respondents 2 to 8 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr. Advocate for Sri Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, Adv. Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr. Advocate for Sri Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, Adv. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for Respondents 3 & 4 in W.P. No.19552 of 2004: G.P. for Home. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Sudershan Reddy) INTRODUCTION: The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are tell-tale. They are required to be noticed in somewhat detail. Where do we begin ? The lis between the mighty State and its citizens centres around a piece of land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas situated in Khairtabad village, Hyderabad District. The dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State attained its freedom still awaits its resolution. The all powerful State used weapon after weapon from its armoury against the respondents unhindered by adverse quasi-judicial verdicts as well as judicial pronouncements. We shall notice the phase-wise events. PHASE – I: Khairtabad village was a Surfekhas village i.e. the private property of H.E.H. The Nizam. The initial survey of Khairtabad village was conducted in the year 1324 Fasli. That according to the entries made in the original *sethwar, the entire extent of land in Survey No.115 is shown as Acs.18-01 gunta. Likewise, the total extent of land in Survey No.116 is shown as Acs.52-34 guntas, classified as Poramboke land. Smt. Pramila Modi (Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004 and L.G.C. No.10 of 2002) purchased a piece of land admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas in Survey Nos.115/2 and 115/3 in Khairtabad village, under the registered sale deed, dated 1st Farwardi, 1355 Fasli from one Smt. Rabia Begum wife of Nawab Dastagir Nawaj Jung Bahadur for a valuable sale consideration of O.S. Rs.25,000/-. According to the revenue records of 1348 Fasli (1937 A.D.), Smt. Rabia Begum was pattadar of only an extent of Acs.3-37 guntas of land forming part of Survey No.115/2 (Acs.2-00), and Survey No.115/3 (Ac.1-37 guntas), respectively. The balance area in Survey No.115 was partly low-lying and known as Enugala Kunta and partly Smashan adjacent to Hindu Smashan Ghat in Survey No.116. The said Pramila Modi was actually put in possession of the land in Survey No.116, as no land was available in Survey Nos.115/2 and 115/3. Having realised the fraud played by her vendor, Pramila Modi approached the Surfekhas authorities seeking appropriate relief. The Minister for Surfekhas Mubarak passed the order in File No.99/45 of 1356 Fasli recognising the possession of Pramila Modi over an extent of Acs.3-27 guntas of land in Survey No.116. A supplementary sethwar was issued in letter No.2615, dated 23rd Meher, 1356 Fasli in Motemadi File No.99/45 of 1356 Fasli. The entries in the supplementary sethwar reveal that Survey No.116 of Khairtabad village was sub-divided as under: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Sy. No. Extent Classification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 116/1 Acs.47-30 gts. Poramboke 2. 116/2 2-21 Non-Agriculture land of Smt. Pramila Modi 3. 116/3 1-06 House of Smt. Pramia Modi 4. 116/4 0-02 Temple 5. 116/5 1-15 Fallow (Padath) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- That the said supplementary sethwar was issued on the basis of Mohatmim Bandobust File No.352, dated 1st Khurdad, 1357 Fasli in File No.99/45 of 1356 Fasli. Thereafter Pramila Modi herself disposed of part of the land i.e. an extent of 7600 square yards in favour of one Meer Basheeruddin Ahmed Khan under document No.287/1357 Fasli, dated 2nd Amardad, 1357 Fasli; and an extent of 3588 square yards in favour of Dr. Roop Karan under document No.170/1357 Fasli, dated 1st Khurdad 1357 Fasli. The said two persons subsequently sold the land purchased by them to various individuals who in turn sold in favour of Respondents 2 to 8 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004. However, the supplementary sethwar issued under the orders of the competent authority were not implemented in the revenue records. PHASE – II: As the matter stood thus, Pramila Modi preferred an application before the Collector, Hyderabad, on 10-12-1963, with a request to demarcate and fix the boundaries of the land purchased by her from Smt. Rabia Begum. The provocation for filing such an application was that her neighbours allegedly tried to encroach upon the land since there were no boundary stones and the same was likely to result in breach of peace. That an elaborate enquiry was held in the matter and the Collector, Hyderabad rejected her request vide Memo, dated 03-04-1964, duly informing Smt. Pramila Modi that her request cannot be considered unless her name is mutated in the revenue records based upon the sale deed produced by her for correction of survey errors, if any. Smt. Pramila Modi, thereafter filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, dated 03-04-1964, before the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records. The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records having perused the records including File No.99/45 of 1356 Falsi, passed orders, dated 29-05-1964, (Ex.B-4 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002) finding that the title of Smt. Pramila Modi for an extent of Acs.3-27 guntas of land in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3 had already been granted and recognised by the Surfekhas authorities and necessary entries were accordingly made by issuing a supplementary sethwar. Directions were accordingly issued to localize and sub-divide the land claimed by Smt. Pramila Modi. The request of Smt. Pramila Modi to recognise her title for whole of the land admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas purchased by her from Smt. Rabia Begum under the registered sale deed, dated 1st Farwardi, 1355 Fasli was, however, rejected by the Director with an observation that “The supplementary sethwar which has been issued is an official document and the official authority in the matter. The registered sale-deed is a private document and cannot be accepted in the light of the supplementary sethwar which has been issued – more so because the supplementary sethwar is of a later date. It is also a matter for consideration that when the supplementary sethwar was issued it was always open to the petitioner Mrs. C.L. Modi to object or represent against this issue of the supplementary sethwar with the restricted area shown in it. This not having been done at that time it is not open to her to object to the limited extent at this later stage. I therefore agree with the Land Record Officer that the supplementary sethwar should be accepted on the question of the extent of land to which the claim of the petitioner should be restricted.” This order passed by the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records was challenged by Hindu Smashan Committee before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order, dated 24-02-1965, (Ex.B-9 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002), having reconsidered the entire issue with reference to available documents including that of Surfekhas Secretariat in File No.99/45 of 1356 Falsi, found that the issue as to the entitlement of the extent of land by Pramila Modi has been resolved under the orders of Surfekhas authorities by entering her name as against Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3, admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas. The Board of Revenue accordingly held that Pramila Modi is entitled to only an extent of Acs.3-27 guntas of land in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3 and not the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas claimed by her before the Collector. It was further found that “she is not entitled to be in possession over and above Acs.3-27 guntas of land and her possession, if any, over and above the said extent, it shall be deemed to be illegal encroachment and liable to be evicted.” It is held “in short, Mrs. Modi is entitled to get her land demarcated to the extent of Acs.3-27 guntas in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3 as per the plan approved by the Surfekhas Secretariat and included in File No.99/45 of 1356 Fasli which shall include the land covered by two sale deeds already executed by her in 1357 Fasli. If Mrs. Modi has got possession over any extent above Acs.3-27 guntas, it shall be deemed to be illegal and she shall be evicted under law by the Revenue authorities.” The revision petition preferred against the orders of the Board of Revenue was dismissed by the Government vide its order, dated 03-12-1968 (Ex.B-10 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002). Thus the said order has become final. PHASE – III: Smt. Pramila Modi aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Collector, Land Records, Hyderabad, and his subordinates in implementing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, dated 24-02-1965, filed W.P. No.4526 of 1975 (Ex.B- 13 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002) in the High Court of A.P., with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus to implement the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 24- 02-1965, and the order of the Government, dated 03-12-1968, by demarcating the land in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and mutating her name in the village and the land records. This Court vide its order, dated 28-08-1975 (Ex.B-36 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002), in W.P.M.P. No.6897 of 1975, issued interim directions directing the Collector, Land Records, Hyderabad, and the Tahsildar, Urban Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, to implement the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 24-02-1965, and the order of the Government, dated 03-12-1968, by demarcating the land and mutating the name of Smt. Pramila Modi in the village and land records as prayed for. The District Collector filed a detailed counter affidavit in W.P. No.4526 of 1975 stating that he has completed the demarcation work as directed by the High Court. In the meanwhile the town survey undertaken by the Government was published by way of notification (Ex.A-1 in L.G.C. No.10 of 2002) issued under Section 13 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Boundaries Act’) and was published in the A.P. Gazette No.60, dated 25-09-1976. However, the interim order passed by the High Court remained unimplemented resulting in Pramila Modi filing C.C. No.44 of 1976 in which the Tahsildar filed counter affidavit stating that “Smt. Pramila Modi is being informed that the supplementary sethwar has been since received and steps for implementing the same are being taken and the said mutation would be finalized during Jamabandi.” Recording the said undertaking the contempt case was closed by this Court vide its order, dated 24-02-1977. PHASE – IV : That on the basis of the entries made in the Town Survey Land Register (for short ‘the TSLR’), proceedings, dated 03-11- 1991, under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘Land Encroachment Act’) were initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer against Smt. Pramila Modi requiring her to show cause as to why she should not be summarily evicted from the land in question on the ground that she had encroached into the land which is classified as Government Poramboke in the TSLR. On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer vide his order, dated 09-04-1992, confirmed the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Commissioner of Land Revenue vide order, dated 08-05-1992, remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Joint Collector, in accordance with law. The Joint Collector vide his order, dated 28-08-1993, having re-examined the entire issue with reference to chronology of events referred to hereinabove and the available documents confirmed Smt. Pramila Modi’s title and possession over the land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3. The Joint Collector further directed her to approach the Collector for correction of revenue records including the TSLR. The District Collector vide his proceedings, dated 15-02-1994, forwarded the proposal to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records for necessary orders to correct the town survey records in view of the orders passed by the various authorities including the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records vide his orders, dated 12-05-1994, accorded permission for correction of the entries in the TSLR and the mutation was accordingly implemented. PHASE – V : Respondents 2 to 8 in W.P. No.20537 of 2004 being the purchasers of the land from Smt. Pramila Modi approached the District Collector seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’ in order to enable them to approach the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for permission to construct buildings in their land purchased by them forming part of Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3. The District Collector vide memo, dated 29-10-1997, rejected the application and accordingly refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ as prayed for claiming the land in question to be the Government property. W.P. No.10159 of 1998 filed by respondents 2 to 8 challenging the Memo, dated 29-10-1997, of the District Collector, was allowed by this Court vide its order, dated 30-10-1998, directing the District Collector to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ as prayed for. The District Collector preferred W.A. No.2235 of 1998 against the order passed by the learned single Judge issuing directions to issue No Objection Certificate. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal in the decision reported in the District Collector, Hyderabad & another v. N. Krishna Mohan & Others, with an observation “when once the petitioners established their possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the 2nd respondent-MCH should have granted permission in favour of the petitioners for construction of buildings instead of driving them to 1st respondent-Collector to obtain No Objection Certificate………Earlier orders passed by the Director of Settlements, Board of Revenue and also the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record should not have been lightly brushed aside by the District Collector. Further he has no appellate powers to comment upon the correctness of the orders passed by the other authorities. He is not a civil Court to give a finding on the title to the property. If he had doubted the petitioners’ title to the property, nothing prevented him to initiate proceedings before appropriate forum.” The Supreme Court of India vide its order, dated 18-08-2000, dismissed the S.L.P. No.12103 of 2000 filed by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records against the judgment of the High Court in W.A. No.2235 of 1998. PHASE – VI : Obviously, taking advantage of the observations referred to hereinabove made in the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner-State of A.P., represented by Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda (for short ‘the State’) preferred L.G.C. No.10 of 2002 before the Special Court under the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 seeking to declare the State as the owner of the application schedule land (land in question) and further declare the respondents to be “land grabbers”. In the concise statement filed in the L.G.C., it is mainly pleaded that the land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas forms part of Survey Nos.116/1 part of Khairtabad correlated to T.S. No.3/1, Block-K and Ward No.89, and is classified as Government land in the TSLR and the same has been “grabbed” by the respondents without any lawful entitlement thereto. It is alleged that Smt. Pramila Modi got issued supplementary sethwar in 1356 Fasli for the land in Survey No.116 for which she has no title; supplementary sethwar was issued under a mistaken impression by the Surfekhas authority without properly verifying the facts as to whether the land purchased by Smt. Pramila Modi is located in Survey No.115 or Survey No.116 of Khairtabad village. Town survey of Khairtabad village was conducted during the years 1965-1970 under the Boundaries Act; after completing the town survey, statutory notification as required under Section 13 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette No.60, dated 25-09- 1976; the said notification has not been challenged by way of suit as provided under Section 14 of the Boundaries Act and thus the entries in the town survey records have become final and conclusive proof of Government’s title over the land in question. In the town survey, the land in question is recorded as Government land. The proceedings, dated 12-05-1994, of the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, for correction of entries in the TSLR is contrary to law; Corrections in the TSLR, if at all, can be made only in accordance with the decree of a competent civil Court as provided for under Section 14 of the Boundaries Act. Smt. Pramila Modi filed a detailed counter narrating all the facts, which we have noticed hereinabove. She mainly relied upon the supplementary sethwar issued vide letter No.2615, dated 23rd Meher, 1356 Fasli under which Survey No.116 was sub-divided into Survey Nos.116/1, 116/2 and 116/3 in which her name was entered as “pattadar” in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/3 and the same has become final. It was also contended that the entries made in the TSLR or revenue records cannot by themselves confer ownership or title and such entries made by the State in its favour without any legal basis and without verifying the necessary title and ownership, have no legal sanctity. Reliance was placed upon the orders passed by various quasi-judicial authorities as well as the order passed by this Court. The counter of respondents 2 to 8 is more or less on the similar lines. It was specifically pleaded that the possession of Smt. Pramila Modi is evident and traceable for a period of more than 50 years, which constitutes adverse possession, and she has perfected her title by prescription. The Special Court upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence made available by the parties, dismissed the L.G.C. while confirming the title and possession of the respondents over the land in question vide its order, dated 30-07-2004. Hence, this writ petition. PHASE – VII : That even after dismissal of the L.G.C., the revenue authorities with the aid of the police tried to dispossess the respondents unlawfully from the land in question on account of which the respondents filed W.P. No.19552 of 2004 in this Court and obtained an interim order on 26-10-2004 in W.P.M.P. No.25599 of 2004 restraining the revenue authorities and police authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents over the land in question. That is how both the writ petitions are interconnected and taken up together for disposal. SUBMISSIONS : Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the State prima facie proved its ownership over the land in question and the burden of proof is on the respondents to establish that the land has not been ‘grabbed’ by them which they have failed to prove. The entries made in the revenue records based upon which the respondents claim title do not confer any right and title over the land in question. The supplementary sethwar issued on the basis of the sale deed, which is the source of title and possession was not produced before the Special Court and was not marked; therefore adverse