IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15353 of 2001 Between: 1 Balamrai Cooperative Housing Society, Rep.by its President M.Komaraiah, S/o. late Venkataiah, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. 2 B. Damodar, s/o. B. Channaiah, R/o. 3-4-132/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 Padma, W/o. B. Damodar R/o. 3-4-132/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR FARAH AJAM KHAN FOR MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE (Assignments) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the property by seeking to demolish the compound wall in respect of plot Nos.44 and 45 admeasuring 919.10 square yards comprised in Survey No.74/6, East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad District as illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri Farah Ajam Khan, learned counsel representing Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). The petitioners claimed that the land admeasuring Acs.39.39 gts originally belonged to one William Ceaser, S/o Dr J.S.Ceaser; that the said land was sold in favour of Dr.E.N.Dass under registered sale deeds dated 12-11-1956 and 01-11-1960 and that subsequently a family settlement deed was executed among the family members of Dr.E.N.Dass and registered as document No.828/68 in the Oﬃce of respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that all the allottees under the registered settlement deed entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner No.1- Society on 05-01-1982 and delivered possession to it and that in the application made by the owners and petitioner No.1-Society, the Central Government gave exemption under Section 20 (1) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) exempting the land from the provisions of Chapter-III of the Act vide proceedings dated 18-05-1985. The petitioners claimed that in pursuance of the said exemption, the owners executed diﬀerent sale deeds in the years 1985 to 1987 conveying the extent of Acs.39.39 gts to them. The petitioners further pleaded that the said land was developed into house sites under a lay out sanctioned by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board vide its proceedings dated 29-11-1985; that the plots were thereafter allotted to the members of petitioner No.1-Society including petitioners 2 and 3 in the year 1986 under registered document Nos.1860/86 and 1978/86 and that respondent No.1 instituted LGC No.167 of 1997 in the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, in which petitioner No.1 herein is respondent No.6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.3, acting under the instructions of respondent No.2, came to the petitioners’ plots on 22-07-2001 and started demolishing a part of the compound wall erected by them for the purpose of safeguarding their property. The petitioners termed his action as arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondents 2 and 3, it is, inter alia, stated that the land admeasuring Acs.306.15 gts in Survey No.74 of Marredpally Paigah Village is a Government land as per pahani patrika of 1356 fasli; that after abolition of jagirs, the jagirdars ceased to be the owners of the said land and all the assignments said to have been made after abolition of jagirs in the name of their kith and kin are null and void as the Ameer-E-Paigah failed to prove his title in the enquiry conducted before the Nazim-E- Atiyat and that therefore no title passed on to the purported pattadars and the entries made in the pahanies are illegal and irregular. It is further averred that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Secunderabad, already ﬁled an appeal before the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Hyderabad District for carrying out corrections of the false entries under Section 15(2) of the Record of Rights Regulation 1358 Fasli and the same is pending. It is further stated that as the LGC ﬁled by the Government against petitioner No.1 and others is pending, respondent No.3, being the custodian of the Government lands is under obligation, to protect the same from being grabbed and demolish the structures illegally raised. On the facts narrated above, it is evident that there is a dispute regarding title. The fact that petitioner No.1 obtained exemption from the Government of India under the provisions of the Act and the Cantonment Board sanctioned layout plan permitting petitioner No.1 to divide the land into plots is not denied. The further fact that the petitioners purchased the two plots under registered sale deeds is also not in dispute. But there is a serious dispute regarding the title over the property and the LGC is pending in the Special Court. In this situation, neither party can with any legitimacy assert that the land belongs to them until the title to the land is adjudicated by the Special Court. While the petitioners plead that in order to protect their property from encroachments, they raised a compound wall, it is the case of respondent No.3 that he is entitled to prevent the petitioners from grabbing the land. The fact that already an LGC is ﬁled itself presupposes that petitioner No.1-Society is in possession of the land. Therefore, the question of the petitioners further grabbing the land does not arise. Respondent No.3, therefore, ought not to have gone to the extent of demolishing the compound wall by taking law into his own hands. If he found that illegal structures are being raised, he is entitled to set the legal process in motion and lawfully prevent the petitioners from raising unauthorized constructions. Having regard to the discussion undertaken above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. 1. The petitioners shall not raise further structures in or around the plots in dispute or create third party rights over the same. 2. Respondent No.3 shall not interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the land till the LGC pending before the Special Court is disposed of. 3. If respondent No.3 ﬁnds that the petitioners violated the directions contained in 1 supra, he shall be free to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th September, 2008 vrn