THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1199, 1201 and 1366 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Since the question involved in these appeals is connected with each other in respect of same subject matter of the property, they are being taken up for disposal together by this common order. Heard Sri B Adinarayana Rao, learned standing counsel for Central Government, Sri Deepak Bhattacherjee, learned standing counsel for Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy appearing on behalf of Sri M S N Prasad learned counsel for contesting respondent/writ petitioner. Out of the three appeals, Writ Appeal Nos. 1199 and 1366 of 2008 are filed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 respectively, aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W P No. 13776 of 2003 dated 22.8.2008 dated 22.8.2008 allowing the writ petition, where the petitioner sought for writ by way of mandamus for a direction to consider his application for permission and to remove the fence erected around the land involved. The other appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1201 of 2008 is filed by the Union of India/fourth respondent therein alone aggrieved against the orders of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed at the instance of contesting respondent/writ petitioner assailing the correctness of proceedings dated 22.8.2003 of the District Collector, Hyderabad. Briefly stated the common facts which gave raise to these proceedings are that in respect of land in question in survey no. 37/2 (old) new survey No. 170/2, which is situate at Tokatta village, Secunderabad, it was claimed that same was purchased by the father of the writ petitioner in W P No. 13776 of 2003 as long back as on 20th Aban 1355 Fasli under a registered sale transaction from its owner Mr.Mir Abdul Wahab and since then has been in possession and subsequent to death of his father, the writ petitioners remains in possession. Thereafter, mutation was effected by the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad dated 18.12.1991 and his name was also accordingly entered in the revenue records, however, the Defence authorities have occupied illegally an extent of about Ac.4.00 and constructed water reservoir without payment of any compensation and the remaining balance Ac.3.27 guntas is concerned the petitioner is in possession. In view of the fencing done by the Defence authorities and the said occupation without due process of law, the petitioner filed W P No. 12729 of 1989, however, same was disposed of by this Court directing the Defence authorities to prove their title, since the title is in question. Thereupon, the Defence authorities filed a comprehensive suit in O S No.266 of 1991 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs. The said suit after contest and regular trial was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.3.1996. The appeal preferred by the Defence authorities in A S No. 99 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad was dismissed as per the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2003. Thereafter the said authorities have preferred a further appeal in S A No. 1145 of 2004. Subsequently the petitioner has filed an application before the Cantonment authorities seeking for permission to construct compound wall, however the same not granted, hence he filed W P No. 13776 of 2003. Meanwhile as against the proceedings as referred to above granting possession in favour of the said writ petitioner by order dated 18.12.1991, it appears a further appeal was carried by the Defence authorities and the said appeal was allowed by the Collector as per the proceedings and order dated 22.8.2003, therefore a separate writ in W P No. 16272 of 2004 was filed assailing the said proceedings on various grounds including the principles of natural justice and also for failure to implead the concerned authorities. In view of the commenness among the three proceedings the learned Single Judge heard both the writ petitions along with aforesaid mentioned appeal in S A No. 1145 of 2004. Ultimately, as per the judgment of the even date the second appeal was also dismissed while allowing the other two writ petitions. Though several questions are sought to be urged in respect of the proceedings of the mutation and also the correctness of the claim of the writ petitioner to seek for such relief of permission, however, the fact remains that irrespective of mutation and the effect thereof both legal and otherwise, it is now well established that the findings of the Civil Court especially in regard to the title would be a conclusive and binding not only between the parties but also on all such parties which will have concern either for the ground of mutation or even for permission. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Central Government as well as the Cantonment Board submitted that since the mutation proceedings were set aside later and there is ample power left with the authorities especially the Cantonment Board to refuse to grant permission as sought for, and there is fraud played by the parties, hence, no relief as such could be granted. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned single Judge is wholly unsustainable. On behalf of the respondent herein, it was contended that the findings of the learned Single Judge and ultimate direction so sought to be confirmed, in view of the penalty as given in respect of the civil proceedings, it is not open for the parties to go back and once again resile from such position and refuse to give the relief to which a party on the basis of propriety rights seeks for. It is on a total consideration of submissions and perusal of the material, the point which arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances, the twin relief as sought for by the writ petitioners is sustainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On an over-all consideration of the checkered events, there is no serious dispute in regard to the different events as took place. The claim of the writ petitioners is to the purchase made by the father of one of the writ petitioners as long back as on 20th Aban, 1955 Falsi which corresponds to almost the year 1945. Thereafter it was claimed that the said property was mutated as per the proceedings dated 18.12.1991 and same carried. There is no dispute to the fact that the Defence authorities constructed a Water Reservoir to an extent of Ac.4.00 out of the total extent of Ac.7.27 guntas, which had lead to filing of the earlier writ petition No.12729 of 1989 which was disposed of by taking into consideration the fact that the title dispute is involved and directing the Defence authorities to seek appropriate relief in Civil Court and establish the title. It is only thereafter, the said authorities have filed a comprehensive suit in O S No. 266 of 1991, however same was dismissed on 13.5.1996 and the said order was confirmed in first appeal in A S No.99 of 1997 by orders dated 18.1.2003 and later in further appeal in S A No. 1145 of 2004 which was separately disposed of by the learned Single Judge by orders of even date. Having regard to the said concurrent findings of fact as arrived at by the Courts, upholding the title of the writ petitioners and also rejecting the claim laid on the right, title and interest as sought to be shown by the Defence authorities, the said findings becomes conclusive , final and binding on all the parties including those who knock the door and sought for the relief, it is not open for the Defence authorities to fall back and reclaim for right, title or interest of whatsoever nature. There is no serious dispute made by either of the standing counsel appearing in these appeals in respect of the said findings. In view of such a situation, the only other aspect which requires to be falls for consideration is in regard to the mutation claimed by the petitioners and permission for allowing construction of compound wall. As far as the proceedings in mutation are concerned, the learned Single Judge though given a separate judgment especially the categorical findings that there are no valid reasons recorded and also that no proper opportunity was given, has set aside the said proceedings. Even otherwise, it was also a finding that the claim of the Defence authorities is virtually a stale one and unsustainable. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the claim of the writ petitioners for title has been upheld by the competent civil Court and the same has become final, there is nothing left for Revenue authorities nor left for them to go on giving such findings and refuse the grant of mutation and make necessary entries as sought for in their favour. Therefore, the learned Single Judge interdicted the said proceedings and basing on the twin consideration upheld the title of the writ petitioner and also the stale claim. Thus, once it is been held that the petitioners having a right and title apart from possession which they are maintaining, it is necessary for them to make safeguards for protecting the said property by either raising the compound wall or otherwise and permission for the same cannot be refused by the competent authorities and there is no other reason pointed out by the Cantonment authorities as to why such a relief could not be granted, even though concerned provision under Section 238 as per the Amendment Act, 2006 also does not envisage any such ground to refuse nor there is anything pointed out on behalf of the appellants to disentitle the permission. Therefore in the circumstances, on a proper consideration and also actly applying the well established principles it is to be held that the appellants have themselves failed to establish their locus to show existence of any valid enforceable right, title or interest including possession. Therefore, we do not find any error or grounds warranting interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge or even the direction. Hence, there are no merits and accordingly the appeals are dismissed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J DATE: - -2009 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1199, 1201 and 1366 of 2008 Date: - -2009