IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21948 of 2008 Between: State of A.P. Rep. by Revenue Divisional Officer Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND Shivlal S/o. Late Hira Lal R/o. 13-3-1019, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the Hon'ble Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act, Hyderabad in LGC No.145 of 1989 and consequently quash the judgment and decree passed by the Special Court in LGC No.145 of 1989, dated 12-12-1994 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice holding that the Govt. is the owner of the schedule property and declare the respondent herein as land grabber in respect of land admeasuring 960 Sq.yds. in T.S.No.46/2, Block-O, Ward No.12 correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad Dist. and set aside the Judgment of the Special Court dated 12-12-1994 in L.G.C.No.145 of 1989. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, in dismissing the application filed in L.G.C.No.145 of 1989, the State invoked the jurisdiction of this Court alleging that the respondent is a land grabber in respect of the land admeasuring 960 sq.mts in T.S.No.46/2, Block-O, Ward No.12 correlated to Sy.No.403 part of Shaikpet Village. The State represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer filed the aforesaid land grabbing case alleging that the respondent grabbed 960 sq. yds of site covered by Sy.No.403, which was classified as Poramboke as per the Revenue records. The respondent resisted the claim made by the petitioner- State in his counter and stated that his father Heeralal purchased an extent of 22,022 sq. yds from one Smt Raheemunnisa Begum under a registered sale deed dated 08- 11-1957 for a valid consideration, out of which, he was in possession of 1,000 sq. yds. It is further stated that the father of the respondent filed O.S.No.187 of 1967 before the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was decreed by the learned Judge holding that the said extent of 1,000 sq. yds belongs to the respondent and rejecting the plea of the State that the said property was part and parcel of the land covered by Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village and since the death of his father, he was in possession of the said property. It is also stated that on a complaint made by the respondent, the learned Special Executive Magistrate, through order dated 23-03-1981, directed release of the land in his favour and, accordingly, panchanama was conducted and possession was delivered to him. Thereafter, he sought permission of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) for construction of the premises and permission was accorded as per order dated 30-01-1982. Pursuant thereto, he constructed a room in the said premises, which was allotted Municipal Door No.8-2-644/1. He states that as the compound wall was in dilapidated condition and when he wanted to get the same repaired, the Corporation and the M.R.O. raised objections and, therefore, he approached this Court in W.P.No.6734 of 1988, wherein this Court in WPMP.No.8495 of 1988 dated 27-04-1988 permitted the respondent to carry on the repairs. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government filed L.G.C. The respondent states that the schedule property is not covered by Sy.No.403, that the Government has no manner of right over the schedule property since it was purchased from the said Raheemunnisa Begum long back in 1957, that the schedule property is his private property, that he has perfected title by adverse possession and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for over a statutory period. An additional counter is filed by the respondent stating that the schedule property was part of Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village, but now the Government is contending that the same is covered by Sy.No.129/19 and that the survey proceedings are not binding on the respondent since no notice has been given either under the Town Survey or under the Revision Survey. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? 2. If so, whether the respondent is not a land grabber? 3. To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether the respondent has perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession? On behalf of the Government, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.19 were marked. On an elaborate consideration of the material available on record, the Special Court held that the respondent has perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession and, accordingly, dismissed the application. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. It is evident from the record that out of an extent of 22,022 sq. yards purchased by the respondent’s father under Ex.B.19, Ac.2.27 was occupied by one Srinivaulunaidu, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.100 of 1962 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which suit ended in compromise and who inturn sold the property to one Krishna Murthy. As the possession of the said Krishana Murthy was interfered with by the State, he filed O.S.No.72 of 1965, re-numbered as O.S.No.175 of 1970, on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against his vendor. The said suit was decreed but since by then Pension Payment Office was constructed in the said property, the Court directed payment of compensation under Land Acquisition Act to the said Krishna Murthy. The Courts consistently held that the schedule property is not Government property but the private property of the respondent and his father. While the Government contended in the aforesaid suits that the schedule property was covered by Sy.No.403, their contention in the present writ petition is that the same is not covered by Sy.No.403 but it is covered by Sy.No.129/19. Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act does not stand in the way of the respondent for the reason that right from 1957, his father Heeralal and after his death, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered by Ex.B.9, of which the schedule property is a part, and that he has perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession. Further, the writ petition is liable to the dismissed on the ground of laches as the State has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after a lapse of 13 years from the date of impugned judgment. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed; however, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J Dt:30-09-2008 usd