IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1412 of 2009 Between: The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Vijaya Kumari & another. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : GP for Revenue Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1412 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 13.08.2009 in Writ Petition No.8759 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and directed the appellant to restore the possession of the respondents in respect of the property bearing H.No.3-2-1/14 at Azamjahi Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the appellant and Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents, who claimed title to the property admeasuring 300 square yards comprised in the municipality number referred to above through their brother one Sri K.Eshwarlal son of late Mohan Lal, filed Writ Petition No.8759 of 2004 for a Mandamus to declare their dispossession from the property by the appellant as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In support of their plea that they are the owners of the property in question, they filed a copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.3502 of 1993 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that the land in question is a Government land, as evident from the entry in Town Survey Land Records. It is also stated that a Government Upper Primary School was proposed to be constructed vide the Collector’s proceedings dated 10.10.1997 and that the vacant possession of the said land was handed over to the then Project Officer, Non- Formal Education, who is the representative of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad under panchanama dated 13.10.1997. But in paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit, the Tahsildar stated that Eshwarlal expired on 19.05.1999 and that the property covered with compound wall to an extent of 218 square meters was taken possession on 06.01.2001 and a board was erected stating that the said land belongs to the Government. The learned Single Judge in his order under appeal placed reliance on letter dated 14.12.1998 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar Mandal to the District Collector, Hyderabad, wherein he has placed the history of the property and on the said basis the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that one Fathimunnisa Begum was the original owner and that she has sold the property to Padma and Shyamal who in turn sold the same to Eshwarlal through whom the respondents claimed the property. On that premises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to re-deliver the possession of the property to the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue strenuously contended that the respondents were never in possession of the property in question and that all through the possession remained with the Government. He further submitted that as far back as 1997, the possession of the property was delivered to the educational department for construction of an Upper Primary School and the writ petition filed in the year 2004 suffered from laches. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the respondents only entitled to file a civil suit for recovery of the possession and no direction for delivery of possession could have been granted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Opposing the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the predecessors-in-title of the property have filed as many as three suits and in all of them their possession was established. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment and decree dated 07.09.1998 in O.S.No.3502 of 1993 filed by Sri K. Eshwarlal, the brother of the respondents, wherein categorical findings were rendered by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad that Eshwarlal having purchased the property under registered sale deeds is in possession of the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit raised contradictory pleas as to the claim of taking possession and that in the face of the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that it was only in the year 2001 that possession was taken, the contra plea that the respondents were dispossessed in the year 1997 deserves to be rejected. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the writ petition the limited question was whether the appellant was justified in dispossessing the respondents from the property in question without following due process of law. This Court is not concerned with the title of the parties because it is the domine of the civil Court wherein the parties will have to adduce evidence to establish their respective title. As far as the possession is concerned, judgment dated 07.09.1998 in O.S.No.3501 of 1993 clearly establishes that Sri K. Eshwarlal, the brother of the respondents, was in possession of the property in question. Admittedly, Eshwarlal died issueless and the respondents claimed title and possession through him. Irrespective of the fact whether they hold title or not, the fact that Eshwarlal was in possession of the property is undeniable in the face of the abovementioned judgment. Though the appellant or any other Government functionary is not a party to the suit, the Municipal Corporation is the sole defendant in the said suit. Therefore, in the absence of any revenue record except an entry in the TSLR, we are not persuaded to accept the plea of the learned Government Pleader that the Government was in physical possession of the property. In fact, such a plea is belied by letter dated 14.12.1998 addressed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer to the District Collector. This letter clearly supports the plea of the respondents that Eshwarlal had been in possession of the property all through. While it is not for this Court to affirm the contents of the said letter regarding the title, as the appellant failed to produce contra evidence, we have no reason to believe that the factum of possession stated in the said letter by the Mandal Revenue Officer is incorrect. In this view of the matter, we cannot accept the plea of the appellant that possession of the property was handed over to the educational department for construction of a school in the year 1997. Had that been so, the Tahsildar would not have stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit that on 06.01.2001 the possession was taken. Assuming that the Government is raising a serious dispute regarding the title of the respondents, it cannot highhandedly dispossess the respondents from physical possession of the property behind their back merely on the basis of the entry in the TSLR. Even if the Government feels that it is the owner of the property, it is bound to follow the due process of law before dispossessing the respondents. Examining the order of the learned Single Judge from this perspective, we do not find any error in the said order warranting interference with the same in exercise of our letter’s patent jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge to this extent does not call for any interference. However, as regards the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge with regard to the title, in our considered opinion, such a finding was not necessary, having regard to the limited controversy raised in the writ petition, namely, whether the dispossession of the respondents from the land was legal or proper. Therefore, we declare that any findings rendered by the learned Single Judge on the title of the respondents will not have any effect on the claim of the Government regarding its ownership over the property. If the Government and its functionaries intend to take action in respect of the property in question, by all means, they are entitled to do so by following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.2933 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2010 ES