HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10929 OF 1997 Wednesday, the Seventh day of September, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Riazuddin (died) per L.Rs. Smt. Muntaz Begum and others Petitioners AND Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act, A.P., Hyderabad and another Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This writ of certiorari is filed by the respondents in L.G.C. No.124 of 1989 to quash order dated 3.3.1997 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short the Special Court). The above L.G.C. filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, was allowed by the order impugned herein declaring the petition schedule land as the government land and the Government as the owner thereof and the petitioners herein – respondents in the L.G.C. as the land grabbers of the petition scheduled property within the meaning of Sec. 2(d)(e) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Act). Originally, the above case was filed against Mr. Riazuddin, the first petitioner herein and consequent upon his death, his legal representatives were brought on record as the petitioners 2 to 6 by order dated 29.1.1992. It is the case of the Government – applicant in the L.G.C. that the petition schedule property admeasuring 525 Sq. Mts. bearing Sy.No.341/1 P and 403 P of Shaikpet village, Golkonda Mandal, Rangareddy District bounded on North by TS No. 97, on South by TS No. 99, on East by T.S. No. 95 and on West by road, is a Government land. It is stated that during the regime of Nizam, in 1346 Fasli, revision survey was taken up and completed in 1352 Fasli. In 1965, town survey of the twin cities was taken up by issuing notification under Sec. 6(1) of the Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short Survey Act) inviting all the persons having any interest in any land covered by the survey, to attend before the concerned authorities and thus under Sec.6(2) of the Survey Act, notification was issued intimating all the persons about it and calling for their objections. Notice under Sec. 9(2) of the Survey Act was not issued inasmuch as it remained as the Government land as on the date of survey as per the Regional Survey Record as well as the Revision Survey Record. During town survey operations, government land in Sy.No. 403, 129/19, etc. of Shaikpet village, Golkonda Mandal was surveyed in four wards and 52 blocks and on the completion of the survey, it was gazetted in Form 55 in Hyderabad District Gazette by the Assistant Director, Traverse Party. It is stated that as per the town survey records, T.S. No. 98 Block M and Ward No.12 of Shaikpet village is a government land and the first petitioner herein Mr. Riazuddin and others grabbed the same land to an extent of Ac.525 Sq. Mts. and constructed houses without any lawful entitlement. Therefore, it is pleaded that they may be declared as land grabbers and evicted therefrom, delivering vacant possession thereof to the applicant. It is the case of the petitioners herein – respondents before the Special Court that they have not encroached upon the Government land in Sy.No.403 (Old 129) to an extent of 525 Sq.yards, as alleged by the Government. Further they have purchased an extent of 550 Sq. Yards in Bholanagar, Shaikpet Sivar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills from one Smt. Choti Bai w/o Gangaram through a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.1.1963, marked as Ex.B- 2 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- and taken physical possession of the land. The said land was purchased after receiving public notice that appeared in Siasat, a Urdu Daily, dated 3.1.1963 under Ex.B-4 and thereafter, the petitioner obtained permission and sanctioned plan under Ex.B-9 and a permit for construction of building, under Ex.B-8. It is further stated that the petitioners are in the possession and enjoyment of the said land since three decades and, therefore, it is not open for the State – applicant to brand them as the land grabbers of the property seeking their eviction from the land. It is stated that pahani patrik of Shaikpet village relied on by the State is a fabricated document and as a matter of fact, the relevant record ought to have been for the period more than twelve years prior to 1963, but the State has not filed relevant documents deliberately and, as such, it cannot be said that the land belongs to the Government. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant/Government is the owner of the application schedule land? 2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true and valid? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act? 4. To what relief. On behalf of the State/Applicant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-14 are marked. On behalf of the respondents – petitioners herein, the fourth petitioner herein was examined as RW-1 and Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked. The Special Court, on the consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application declaring the petitioners as the land grabbers and directing them to vacate the land and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the Government within two months, failing which directed the R.D.O., Hyderabad, to deliver the possession of the schedule land to the Government. Assailing the said order, the respondents in the L.G.C. have preferred this Writ Petition. PW-1, the then Mandala Revenue Officer, Golkonda, deposed that the petitioner herein has grabbed the government land, which is situated in Sy. No. 403/Paret corresponding to T.S. No. 98, Ward No.12 and Block M to an extent of 525 Sq. Mts. and also constructed a building therein. Ex.A-1 is the sketch of the suit land and Ex.A-2 is the pahani for the year1981-82, column No.11 of the same shows that the land is poramboke sarkari and column Nos. 12 and 16 show that it is sarkari. Ex. A-3 is the pahani for the year 1986-87 and column Nos.7 and 12 therein mention the suit land as sarkari. Ex. A-4 is the TSLR and column No.6 thereof shows the suit land as ‘C’ and column Nos.10 and 20 therein show that it is sarkari. Ex.A-5 is the extract of sub-divisional map of the suit land. He deposed that the first petitioner has grabbed the government land and the other petitioners came who are his legal heirs and all of them are liable to be evicted from the property. In the cross examination, he deposed that the entire Shaikpet village was Sarf-e-khas village as well as the Government land covered by Sy.No.403 and the Government has given patta only for Ac.2500.00 out of Ac.2967.00 to various individuals or institutions. He stated that no patta was granted to one Choti Bai to an extent of Ac.2.29 guntas in Sy. No.129/1 in Sy.No. 1952, as suggest by the petitioners herein. In 1952 there was no Sy. No. 129/1 in Shaikpet village. It is stated that he is not aware of the letter dated 14.5.1952 in File No. 83/11- Lovani/51 said to have been issued by the then Tahsildar West to Choti Bai. It is further stated that the petitioners herein have been in the possession of the said land since last 13 to 15 years and it is incorrect to state that they are in the possession of the land for a period of thirty years. It is stated that he is not aware whether Choti Bai was granted any patta. PW-2, the then Mandala Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, reiterated the averments made in the concise statement and stated that the schedule property is in Town Sy. No. 98 Ward No.12 and Block ‘M’. As per the town survey, the extent of land, which is said to have been grabbed is 525 Sq. Mts., which co-relates with the initial survey No.403. Ex.A-6 is the initial survey map of Shaikpet village. Ex.A-7 is a copy of the revision survey map of Shaikpet village and the red portion in the map shows the petition schedule property. Ex.A-8 is correlation sketch of initial, revision and town survey of the Shaikpet village. The location of the petition schedule land has not been changed either in the revision survey or the town survey. As per the revenue records, no patta was granted to the vendor of the petitioners i.e. Choti Bai w/o Gangaram or in the name of Gangaram, in respect of the petition schedule property or any other property at Shaikpet village. It is stated that Choti Bai was not granted any patta for Ac.2.29 guntas out of Sy.No. 129/1 by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad, on 14.5.1952, as contended by the petitioners. Ex.A-9 is the true extract of sesala pahani of Shaikpet village for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58 pertaining to Sy.No. 403, in which it is stated that one Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram is the possessor of Ac.2.29 guntas covered by Sy.No. 403 and again at Sl.No. 52/1 therein an insertion was made with different ink and in different writing to the effect that Choti Bai w/o Gangaram was in possession of the said land. The said insertion was made at the end of the page with different ink and different handwriting. He further stated that during 1958-1959, in Sy. No. 403, at Sl.No. 1, an extent of Ac.2.29 guntas was shown in the possession of Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram and again at Sl.No. 52/1, similar extent of Ac.2.29 guntas was shown in the occupation of Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram. During 1959-60, under Sl. No. 1 of Sy. No. 403, Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram is shown to be in the occupation of Ac.2.29 guntas and a further extent of Ac.5.00 at Sl. No. 541 is shown to be in the possession of Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram. In Exs.A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-13 which are the Xerox copies of pahanies for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, the name of neither Mothi Bai nor Choti Bai is shown as the occupier of the land in Sy.No. 403. It is further stated that Exs. A-9 to A-13 are the extracts or Xerox copies of the originals and they tally with the original records. The suggestion that the name of Choti Bai, vendor of the petitioners is incorrectly shown as Mothi Bai in the revenue records is denied. Further suggestion that the petitioners are not in the possession of the said property for more than thirty years is also denied. PW-3 is the Deputy Tahsildar, Golkonda, he is examined to show the market value of the property similarly situated, which works out to Rs.800/- per Yard, as per Ex.A-14, certified extract of the sale deed dated 9.1.1996. The fourth petitioner herein was examined as RW-1. He deposed that his father purchased the schedule property to an extent of 550 Sq. yards from one Choti Bai w/o Gangaram under Ex.B-2, sale deed dated 11.1.1963. Ex.B-3 is the English translation of Ex.B-2. He stated that before purchase, his father also gave publication on 3.1.1963 in Siasat, Urdu Daily, under Ex.B-4 and B-5 is its English translation. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioners obtained permission for the construction of a house and Exs. B-6 and B-7 are the receipts of making payment to the Municipality and Exs. B-8 and B-9 are the permission and approved plan granted by the Municipality. Ex.B-10 is the application for obtaining drainage connection. It is stated that after the house was constructed, it was assessed to tax and since thirty years, they are paying the tax and residing in the said house. The house is located in slum area and it is adjacent to open nala in Bholanagar. He also stated that his father’s vendor was granted patta to an extent of Ac. 2.29 guntas out of Sy. No.129/1 by the Tahsildar and he gave notice to the Government Pleader to cause production of the original patta in favour of Choti Bai, but he failed to produce the same. It is stated that he has seen the order issuing patta to Choti Bai. It is also stated that his father did not grab the land. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent/State is able to establish that the schedule property is Government land and whether the rival title set up by the petitioners herein is true and valid? Though the petitioners herein have relied on the sale deed, Ex.B-2, the patta of the vendor as claimed by the petitioner is not proved. The petitioners claim that they have acquired the title by adverse possession. The petitioners herein have failed to establish their vendor’s possession thirty years prior to the filing of the L.G.C. The petitioners are relying on Ex.B-2 Sale deed dated 11.1.1963 to claim adverse possession. Admittedly, The L.G.C. was filed in September, 1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are in possession prior to Ex.B- 2 sale deed. The tenure of their possession over the petition schedule land from January, 1963 to the date of filing of the L.G.C. is only 26 years 8 months and, as such, it cannot be said that they have acquired title over the property by adverse possession against the Government. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the State has discharged their initial burden to establish that the schedule property is the Government land or whether the petitioners are able to establish their title based on the patta said to have been granted to the petitioners’ vendor. Though the petitioners have relied on the patta said to have been granted to their vendor Choti Bai w/o Gangaram, yet they have failed to adduce any evidence relating to the said patta. In sesala pahani for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58, the name of Choti Bai i.e. the vendor of the petitioners is mentioned. The Mandal Revenue Officer, examined on behalf of the State has stated that at Sl.No.52/1 there is correction showing Choti Bai in possession without showing any extent. During 1958-59, at Sl. No. 1, an extent of Ac.2.29 guntas was shown in the possession of Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram and at Sl. No.52/1 similar extent was shown in occupation of Mothi bai w/o Gangaram, but during 1959-60 at Sl.No.1 the same extent was shown in the possession of Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram apart from Ac.5.00 at Sl. No.51 shown land in the possession of the said Mothi Bai w/o Gangaram. But, however, the name of said Mothi Bai is not at all mentioned in the subsequent pahanies and, therefore, it cannot be said that Mothi Bai or Choti Bai have ever been granted patta. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioners herein failed to establish the alleged patta said to have been granted to their vendor, pursuant to which she sold the land to the petitioners under Ex.B-2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners derived title under Ex.B-2 sale deed, when the said land belongs to Government. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Special Court. But however, it is not disputed that the petitioners herein are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property from the date they purchased the property under Ex.B2 and have also constructed house therein. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Special Court in para No.19 of the judgment has rightly observed that the State is at liberty to consider the representation of the respondents to regularize the grabbing of the scheduled land as per Rules. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners herein are at liberty to make appropriate application for regularizing the said Government land in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy September 7, 2011 MAS