THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.408 OF 2002 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein is a trust created by the erstwhile the H.E.H. Nizam VII of Hyderabad under a deed of trust dated 21.3.1957 for the benefit of his seven children born to his wife Mrs. Laila Begum. The petitioner claims that the trust property includes a Palace called ‘Asman Garh’ (Fern Hill Palace) with appurtenant land of Ac.25.00 forming part of Sy.Nos.318/1 and 318/2 of Gaddiannaram village, Hyderabad Urban District. It is alleged that an extent of Ac.3.08 gts situated in Sy.No.318/1 was utilized by the respondents herein for setting up a TV Transmission Station invoking the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’). Though possession was taken on 3.8.1976, no compensation was paid in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in continuing in occupation of the trust property of Ac.3.08 gts as arbitrary and illegal; and consequentially, to direct them to hand over possession to the petitioner-trust. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority under the Act issued notice dated 8.7.1976 in Form-A under Section 3(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner-trust to show cause as to why the land approximately an extent of Ac.3.00 to Ac.4.00 situated in Sy.No.318/1 should not be requisitioned since the same was needed for a public purpose viz., for setting up a T.V. Transmission Station. There was also a direction that neither the owner of the said property nor any other person shall without any permission dispossess or structurally alter the said property until the expiry of two months from the date of receipt of the said notice. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 29.7.1976 thereby requisitioning Ac.3.08 gts. of land in Sy.No.318/1 and directing the petitioner-trust as well as others to deliver possession of the said land to the Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition (Defence) Hyderabad District within 30 days. The petitioner-trust sought for a clarification with regard to the identity of the land requisitioned and, accordingly, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 11.6.1976 furnished the boundaries of the exact area of Ac.3.08 gts required for setting up Television Transmission Station. It is not in dispute that after the stipulated 30 days, possession of the land in question was taken by the 2nd respondent and the same was handed over to the T.V. authorities on 30.8.1976. By letter dated 16.9.1976 a sketch of the land of which possession was taken was also communicated to the petitioner-trust. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though possession was taken, the respondents 1 to 3 failed to initiate any steps to assess the annual recurring rentals payable to the petitioner during the period of requisition nor any steps were initiated for payment of compensation thereto. It is contended by the petitioner that under Section 6 of the Act, as amended by Act 1 of 1970 with effect from 11.3.1970, the Central Government is bound to release the property requisitioned on or before the expiry of the period of 17 years from the date on which possession is taken by the competent authority under Section 4 of the Act unless such property is acquired under Section 7 of the Act within the stipulated 17 years. Since the property in question belonging to the petitioner-trust was taken over by the respondents invoking the provisions of the Act on 30.8.1976, the petitioner contends that the statutory requisition period of 17 years expired on 29.8.1993 and, therefore the respondents are under a statutory obligation to pay the recurring rents for the use and occupation of such property during the period of requisition as provided under sub-section (2A) and (2B) of Section 8 of the Act. Since no such payment was made, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of requisitioning and to release and restore back possession of the land in question to the petitioner-trust in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In response to Rule nisi ordered, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, stating that Gaddiannaram village is a ex-sarfekhas village and the same vested with the Government under the Sarfekhas Merger Regulation, 1958-F. It is also stated that the said village was surveyed during the sarfekhas period in 1326-F (1916 AD) in which Sy.No.300/1, admeasuring Ac.109.21 gts was shown as sarfekhas property. It is further stated that according to initial survey, Sy.No.300/1 was covered by a hillock and a Palace belonging to the H.E.H. the Nizam was situated in Sy.No.300/2 admeasuring Ac.5.00. A revision survey of Gaddiannaram village was conducted during the 1352-F (1942 AD) in which Sy.NoS.300/1 and 300/2 were changed into Sy.No.318/1 and 318/2, admeasuring Ac.109.21 gts and Ac.5.00 respectively. Even according to the survey map of 1951, the H.E.H. Nizam’s palace bearing Municipal House No.IS-1-741, known as Fern Hill was shown in Sy.No.318/2. In the agreement dated 25.1.1950 entered into by the H.E.H. the Nizam with the Government, the said Palace was shown as his private property. The properties, which were not recognized as private properties under the said agreement were vested with the Government. Subsequently, a trust deed dated 21.3.1957 was created by the H.E.H. the Nizam in respect of Fern Hill palace wherein open land was shown as boundary adjacent to the building belonging to Sarfekhas. Thus, it is contended that though the building was recognized as the private property of the H.E.H. the Nizam, the rest of the land merged with the Government. Thereafter Town Survey was conducted during the years 1964-69 under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923’), after inviting objections from all the concerned by issuing a notification under Section 6(1) of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. According to Town Survey, Sy.No.318/1 correlated to Town Survey Numbers as under: T.S.No.1 to 56, Block-A, Ward No.170 T.S.No.2 to 40, Block-B, Ward No.170 T.S.No.1 to 60, Block-D, Ward No.170 T.S.Nos.2,3,5 to 65, Block-F, Ward No.170. Pursuant thereto, a notification under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 was published in the Gazette dated 12.7.1977. Accordingly, the entries in Town Survey and Land Register (TSLR) have become final. As per the TSLR, the entire land in T.S.No.1 to 56; T.S.Nos.2 to 40; T.S.No.1 to 60 and T.S.Nos.2, 3 5 to 65 (correlated to Sy.No.318/1) was shown as Kharij Khata. It is further pleaded in the counter-affidavit that Fern Hill Palace, which is the schedule property of the trust deed, is situated in Sy.No.300/2, corresponding to new Sy.No.318/2 admeasuring Ac.5.00. It is pleaded that except the said Palace, which was recognized as private properties of the H.E.H. the Nizam under the agreement dated 25.1.1950, the rest of the properties belonging to sarfekhas vested with the Government. As per the list of properties in Blue Book held by the H.E.H. Nizam, the building in question has been recorded as Fern Hill bearing Municipal House No.IS-1-741. As per TSLR the said building falls in T.S.No.4 Block F Ward No.170, correlated to Sy.No.318/2 admeasuring 14728 sq. mts, which alone is the private property of the H.E.H. the Nizam. The TSLR also shows that the adjacent land to Fern Hill Palace which falls in Sy.No.318/1 correlated to T.S.No.2, Block B, Ward No.170 to an extent of 557444 sq. mts is recorded as Kharij Khata and it is not entered in Blue Book. Thus, it is contended by the respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner-trust is no way concerned with Sy.No.318/1. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saidabad Mandal filed L.G.C.No.4 of 2002 and L.G.C.No.54 of 2002 under the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, seeking eviction of the encroachers of the land grabbed forming part of T.S.No.2, Block B, Ward No.170, correlated to Sy.No.318/1 of Gaddiannaram village which is Kharij Khata (Government land). The said cases are pending before the Special Court constituted under the Act. So far the proceedings under the Act are concerned, it is stated that the land requisitioned is situated in Sy.No.318/1 which is the Government land. It is contended that since under Section 3(1) of the Act it is necessary to call upon the owner or any other person in possession of the property to show cause as to why the property should not be requisitioned, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 8.7.1976 and mere issuance of such notice to the petitioner-trust does not confer any title or right over the property. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent reiterating that Sy.No.318/1 is a Government Kharij Khata land and does not belong to the petitioner and, therefore, the question of redelivering possession of the land to the petitioner does not arise. The petitioner filed an affidavit in reply disputing the stand taken by the respondents that the land in Sy.No.318/1 is not a private land of the H.E.H. the Nizam. Though the fact that revision survey of the Gaddiannaram village was conducted in the year 1352-F in which Sy.Nos.300/1, 300/2 and 300/3 were re-numbered as Sy.No.318/1; 318/2 and 318/3, respectively has not been disputed, it is stated that the name of H.E.H. the Nizam was recorded as pattedar/khatedar in respect of new Sy.No.318/1, 318/2 and 318/3 in Vasulubaki Register. It is also contended that even the other Basic Revenue Records, such as sethwar and Khasraphahani (1954-55) relevant to Sy.No.318/1, 318/2 and 318/3 showed the name of the H.E.H. the Nizam as pattedar and occupier of the entire extent of Ac.109.21 gts in Sy.No.318/1. Even Chowfaslas and sesala pahanies reveal the name of H.E.H. the Nizam as owner and occupier of the said land including the pahanies up to 1950-60. However, the name of the H.E.H. the Nizam VII was deleted from the revenue records from the year 1960-61 by the village Patwari without there being any justifiable reason and the land in question was shown as Sarkari Kharij Khata. Aggrieved by the said action of the Patwari, H.E.H. the Nizam VII filed a Petition under Section 15(2) of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations 1358-F for correction of wrong entries in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.318/1 and 318/5 of Gaddiannaram village. After conducting necessary enquiry, the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District by order dated 19.5.1965 ordered that the land in Sy.No.318/1 and 318/5 should be shown in the name of H.E.H. the Nizam and the records of rights shall be corrected accordingly. The said order dated 19.5.1965 was challenged by one Syed. Khaja Mahmeed Ali in W.P.No.1984 of 1965 on the ground that the said order was passed without notice to him. This Court by order dated 18.8.1969 allowed W.P.No.1984 of 1965 thereby setting aside the order dated 19.5.1965 and directing the Joint Collector to conduct a fresh hearing after serving due notice on the petitioner therein. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District in his capacity as P.A., to the Collector of Hyderabad under the delegated powers conferred on him by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.77, Revenue, dated 21.1.1968, conducted fresh enquiry and after hearing both the parties passed an order dated 14.8.1980 holding that the deletion of the name of H.E.H. Nizam in column No.11 of pahanis from 1960-61 onwards was a mistake committed by the Patwari. Accordingly, there was a direction to enter the name of H.E.H. Nizam in the appropriate column of the pahanis from the year 1960-61 and onwards by deleting the word “Sarkari Khariz Khata”. Aggrieved by the said order, the State Government preferred a Revision Petition under Section 166-B of A.P. (Telanagana) Area Land Revenue Act, 1317-F before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by order dated 14.9.1981 thereby confirming the order dated 14.8.1980. Since the said order dated 14.9.1981 has become final, it is contended by the petitioners that there cannot be any dispute as to the ownership of the petitioner trust and the claim of the respondents that the land in question is the Government land is untenable. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner also referred to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.28of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 2.12.1970 and the order in O.P.No.242 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 22.11.1978 in which the ownership of H.E.H. Nizam-VII in respect of the lands covered by Sy.Nos.318/1 and 318/5 of Gaddiannaram Village was upheld. The petitioner also relied upon some of the orders passed under A.P. Government Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 under which the petitioner trust was assessed in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.318/1. While placing strong reliance upon various orders referred to in the reply affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the version of the respondents that Ac.3-08 guntas of land requisitioned under Section 3 (2) of the Act situated in Sy.No.318/1 is the Government land is without any basis and also factually incorrect. On the other hand, Sri G. Manohar, representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the fact that Sy.No.318/1 has not been included in the Blue Book, itself shows that it is not personal property of H.E.H.Nizam. It is also contended that except the Fern Hill Palace which is bounded by the compound wall with clearly demarcated boundaries admeasuring 5 acres, the land appurtenant to the Palace is not recognized as the personal property of H.E.H. Nizam and consequently the trust created by H.E.H. Nizam in the year 1957 is only in respect of the said 5 acres including palace and the rest is Sarfekhas land. From the facts borne out of the record, it is clear that Sy.Nos.318/1 and 318/2 admeasuring 109.21 guntas and 5 acres respectively apart from Sy.No.318/3 admeasuring 30 guntas form part of Gaddiannaram village which was the private property of H.E.H. Nizam. Under the provisions of Sarfekhas (Merger) Regulations 1358 Fasli, Gaddiannaram village vested with the Government in the year 1949. Thereafter, H.E.H. Nizam entered into an agreement with the Government of India on 25.1.1950 under which certain properties, including the Fern Hill Palace bearing No.IS-1-741, were claimed as his private property. Accordingly, the same were recognized as the private property of H.E.H. Nizam. The rest of the property vested with the Government. The specific case of the petitioner is that the H.E.H. Nizam executed the trust deed dated 21.3.1957 conveying 25 acres of land including Fern Hill Palace in favour of the petitioner trust. The said 25 acres, according to the petitioner, is situated in Sy.No.318/1 which is co-related to T.S.Nos.4 Part and 5 Part in Ward No.170, Block-F. It is also claimed that the Ac.3.08 guntas of land requisitioned under the Notice dated 29.7.1976 forms part of the said 25 acres. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondents is that what was conveyed under the trust deed dated 21.3.1957 was only an extent of 5 acres situated in Sy.No.318/2 co-related to T.S.No.4, Block-F, Ward No.170. It is the case of the respondents that the said Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.318/2 including Fern Hill Palace alone was recognized as private property of H.E.H. Nizam and even in the Blue Book the same was entered. Thus, the respondents contended that the Ac.3.08 guntas requisitioned vide notice dated 29.7.1976 has nothing to do with the property recognized as private property of the H.E.H. Nizam, but it forms part of the land adjacent to Fern Hill Palace, covered by Sy.No.318/1 co-related to T.S.No.2, Block-B which vested with the Government and recorded in the T.S.L.R. as Khariz Khata. It is true that the P.A. to the Collector, Hyderabad District in his order dated 14.8.1980 passed under Section 15 (2) of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations 1358-F recorded a finding that deletion of the name of H.E.H. Nizam in Column No.11 of Pahanis from 1960-61 onwards was a mistake committed by Patwari. Challenging the said order though the Government filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records, the same was dismissed by order dated 14.9.1981. It is not in dispute that the said order has become final. However, as per the town survey made under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the entire Sy.No.318/1 admeasuring Ac.109.21 guntas has been classified as Khariz Khata and the said entries also became final since no suit was filed within 3 years as provided under Section 14 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of the Division bench in UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.[1] contended that the entries in TSLR are not conclusive and the same cannot override the entries made in the Record of Rights maintained under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the ROR Act’) which shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved. There can be no dispute that the entries made in the Record of Rights prepared and maintained under the ROR Act have the evidentiary value and they are prima facie evidence of possession and right to hold the land. However, the law is well settled that the entries made even in a Record of Rights is not to create rights where none existed. The legal position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in SURAJ BHAN AND OTHERS v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[2] as under : “It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of- rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.” In the case on hand, not only the title claimed by the petitioner trust in respect of the 25 acres of land situated in Sy.No.318/1 is in dispute but the location/identity of the Ac.3-08 guntas of land requisitioned under the provisions of the Act vide proceedings dated 29.7.1976 also requires adjudication so as to grant the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. As noticed above, the specific contention of the respondents is that only an extent of 5 acres including Fern Hill Palace was conveyed to the petitioner trust under the Trust Deed, dated 21.3.1957 and that the Ac.3-08 guntas of land which was requisitioned under the proceedings dated 29.7.1976 does not form part of the said 5 acres. It is neither desirable nor advisable for this Court to record any finding or to express any opinion on such disputed questions of fact while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such questions require adjudication on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced by the parties, and cannot be decided by this Court on the basis of mere affidavits. Therefore the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy available under law before the proper forum for redressal of its grievance. It is made clear that this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits and the proceedings that may be instituted by the petitioner shall be considered and decided independently without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18-1-2008 Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.408 OF 2002 18th January, 2008. Between: Fern Hill Trust rep. By its Trustee Mr. Mahamood bin Mohammed. .. Petitioner. And Union of India rep. by the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, A.P., and others. .. Respondents. [1] 2002 (5) ALD 532 [2] (2007) 6 SCC 186