IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 431 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/12/2005 in WP NO : 23794 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 P. Kalpana, W/o. P. V. Subba Rao, R/o. 63, Princeton Court, Hill fort, Basheerabaug, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Chief City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 5 K. Amarender Reddy S/o. Laxma Reddy Plot No. 120, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyd (R5 is impleaded as per court order dt. 28-11-2005 in WPMP 31978 of 2005) 6 P. Kalpana W/o. Subba Rao Pinsal court, Basheerbaug, Hyd. (R6 is impleaded as per court order dt. 29-11-2005 in WPMP 31642 of 2005) 7 E. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o. Amarender Reddy R/o. 8-2-703/4/B/1/A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyd. 8 E. Bharat Reddy S/o. Amarender Reddy R/o. 8-2-703/4/B/1/A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyd. (RR 7&8 are impleaded as per court order dt. 29-11-2005 in WPMP 32393 of 2005 ) ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Mr. Shaik Mansoor, S/o. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb, R/o. Plot No. 129, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 2 Mr. Shaik Abdul Gaffar, S/o. Shaik Abdul Azeed, R/o. Plot No. 129, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 3 Mr. Shaik Jamal Wali, S/o. Shaik Murad, R/o. Plot No. 129, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 4 Mr. Syed Ifekar Hussain Zaidi, S/o. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Zaidi, R/o. 22-3-910, Darulshifa, Hyderabad. 5 Mr. Shaik Anwar Basha, S/o. Quasim Miya, R/o. Plot No. 129, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 6 Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Hussain, S/o. Syed Ali Hussain, R/o. 22-3-910, Darulshifa, Hyderabad. 7 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 8 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 9 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad, Rep by its Commissioner 10 The Chief City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 11 A. Amarender Reddy, S/o. K. Laxma Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 120, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 12 E. Venkatram Reddy, S/o. E. Amarender Reddy, r/o. 8-2-703/4/B/1/A, Road No. 12, Banjarah Hills, Hyderabad. 13 E. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. E. Amarender Reddy, r/o. 8-2-703/4/B/1/A, Road No. 12, Banjarah Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. B. VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MPL ADMN.& URBAN DEV. MR.RAJENDER DESHMUKH MR. V.R. REDDY MR. V.V. RAMANA MR. MOHD. MAHBOOB ALI The Division Bench of this Court made the following judgment : ( Text of Judgment follows on 3rd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 431 of 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the orders dated 13-12-2005 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.23794 of 2005 wherein the petitioner had questioned the Proceedings No.11/6653/2004 dated 15-3-2005 and the Proceedings No.11/12/6653/2004 dated 21-10- 2005 of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad district, whereby no objection certificate was issued under Proceedings No.12/6653, dated 30-11-2004 was cancelled. Both the counsel have agreed that the present writ appeal can be disposed of on merits. 2. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to contend that the claim of the respondents is based on the oral Hiba and some of the respondents in the writ appeal are fictitious persons and some of the persons were set up by Respondent No.11 in the writ appeal. Even if the matter is remanded to the Joint Collector a direction may be issued to him to consider the objections. The learned counsel seeks to contend that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the appellant filed objection petition before the District Collector against issuance of “No Objection Certificate” to the respondents 1 to 6. Further the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the respondents 1 to 6 do not have any legal claim or interest over the subject property and therefore, the order impugned should not have been set aside. The learned single Judge ought to have seen that the seventh respondent entertained a bonafide doubt about the title of the respondents 1 to 6 in respect of the property and therefore, the impugned order recalling the no objection certificate cannot be found fault with. Further the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the appellant is one of the decree holders in OS.No.106 of 1991 on the file of the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in respect of the very same property. The learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the respondents 1 to 6 have filed OS.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is pending. In any event of the matter, the learned single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition in view of the bonafide claim of title by the appellant over the property concerned and ought to have directed the parties to approach civil court for declaration of their title. 3. The learned counsel submits that the respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in recalling the ‘No Objection Certificate’ at the instance of rival claimants. What he means to say is that the scope of ‘No Objection Certificate’ is to know whether the land is a Government land or a private land and the land admittedly not being a Government land, the dispute between the two private parties does not warrant recalling of ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the 2nd respondent on 30-11-2004. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in G.Jayamala Vs. The Commisioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1] and The District Collector, Hyderabad Vs. Rashid Khushro Battiwala ( Writ Appeal Nos. 2106, 2112 of 2002 and 167 of 2003) 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that originally Acs:3-13 guntas of land in survey No.129/30 corresponds to new survey No.340 of Banjara Hills, Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad district belong to one Abdulla Pasha and that the same had been gifted to one Shaik Abdullah in the year 1942 in accordance with Mohammedan law and later the relevant authorities ordered for mutation of the said property on the said gift in favour of Shaik Abdullah. Shaik Abdullah later sold the same to one Shaik Ahmed Moodi in 1964, who in turn sold the said property to M/s. V.V. Rao, Bhujangarao, Mrs. Kishori Bhujanga Rao, E.Shankaramma vide registered sale deeds dated 23-2-1996 and that each of the said purchaser had 1/4th share in the said property. Out of all the 1/4th share each M/s. VV Rao and Bhujanga Rao sold their 4000 sq.yards to the Women Co-operative Housing Society through a registered sale deed, while E.Shankaramma sold 2000 sq.yards to the society by retaining 2000 sq.yards with her. It is also claimed that Mrs.Kishori Bhujanga Rao entered into an agreement of sale towards her share of 4000 sq.yards in favour of the Silent Valley Co-operative Housing Society Limited as per the provisions in GO.Ms.No.136, dated 28-1-1981 on 25-6-1981 and thus the Women Co- operative Housing Society became owner of 10000 sq.yards obtained a layout vide layout NO.25/Layout/8/70 by paying betterment charges and allotted the plots to Dr.Sarala Ravikanth, Smt. Radha Menon, Smt.K.Bharathi, Smt. Vidyulathamma, Smt. Saraswathi, Smt. D.Rajyalaxmi, Smt. M.Sahilatha, M.V. Rajashekar Reddy, Presmitha and Smt. P.Kalpana, the appellant herein by executing registered sale deeds in their favour. As such, they are in actual peaceful possession to the extent of purchases made by them out of 2000 sq.yards sold by E.Shankaramma in favour of Women’s Co-operative Housing Society. The Silent Valley Co-operative Housing Society is in possession of 4000 sq.yards having purchased the same from Mrs. Kishori Bhujanga Rao under an agreement of sale. While the defendants 5, 6 and 7 namely; Sri E.Amarender Reddy, Sri E.Venkatram Reddy and Sri E.Bharat Reddy are in possession of the balance of 2000 sq.yards retained by Smt.E.Shankaramma being her legal heirs. While so, the defendants 1 and 2 namely; Sri D.Ramchandra Reddy and Sri P.Sriramulu brought into existence the forged documents and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of defendants 3 to 18 in Acs:3-13 guntas of land mentioned above. As such, they filed OS.No.106 of 1991 on the file of the Court of V-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction on 15-2-1991 against defendant no.1 herein apart from obtaining injunction orders restraining the defendants 1 and 2 herein from alienating the suit property and the defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the said orders. As such, the Court suspended the said orders and directed the third defendant to be in possession of the property in the capacity of Court Receiver to protect the said property from the land grabbers. The defendants contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer colluded with the first defendant and decided the title against the defendants 3 to 18. As such, instead of filing the petition of revision against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, they have filed a suit for declaration of title and contended that the claim of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 and 2 sold the properties to the extent of Acs:3-00 in his favour by obtaining a sale consideration of Rs.9.00 lakhs is false and denied that the possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff. They claimed that when the sale is coupled with the alleged delivery of possession, the agreement has to be executed on a proper stamp papers, as other wise, it would be invalid and the plaintiff could not file such document before the court. Hence, claimed that the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is the plaintiff, Sri K.Amarender Reddy, who colluded with the defendant no.1 and created fictitious documents alleging that the suit property to be that of the defendant no.1 and denied that they have colluded with the defendants 1 and 2. They claimed that the defendants 1 or 2 do not have any right or title over the suit property, hence their entering into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff does not arise. They claimed that the plaintiff is claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in this suit but has taken a contrary view in the suit filed by the defendants in OS.No.106 of 1991 and claimed that the ground taken by the plaintiff is a false one. They claimed that when the plaintiff is himself admitting having sold away a part of the land purchased by him to the third parties, the court ought not to have given orders of injunction in favour of plaintiff, Sri K.Amarender Reddy. They denied that the land in survey no.129/30 was ever a subject matter of the land grabbing proceedings as claimed by the plaintiff and contended that if the plaintiff has occupied the Government land then the said case against the plaintiff has to be a genuine one. They claimed that the evidence of the defendant no.1 in the said land grabbing case admitting the sale of the suit property and handing over possession of the same apart from executing irrevocable GPA is obtained by them without informing the court and OS.No.106 of 1991 is filed by defendants 3 to 18 for declaration of title. Hence, claimed that the same is not binding on them. They claimed that the defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the suit property and thus have no right to alienate the same in favour of anyone else. They claimed that the cancellation of the alleged agreement as per the paper publication of defendants 1 and 2 has to be answered by the said defendants and not by these defendants, as these defendants have nothing to do with the same and hence the plaintiff has impleaded himself in the said suit. Since the defendants 3 to 18 are not made party to the suit, the suit is therefore liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. 5. In reply thereto, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri S.R.Ashok submits that as the learned single Judge has satisfied with the contentions of the second respondent and gave cogent reasons for his conclusion. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that except the unregistered memorandum of gift deeds, the applicant did not place any other document before the Joint Collector to show that he has acquired title and that is in possession of the same. The Revenue Records did not show the names of either Syed Khasim or Shaik Mansoor and others nor any other proof like payment of Land Revenue of Nala etc. inasmuch as if the applicants were to have acquired any title in question in 1355 Fasli by Syed Khasim or in 1960-61 by applicants they could have incorporated their names by applying for mutation and if they could have been in possession, it could have reflected in revenue records in possession column in pahanis or if could have reflected during town survey during 1964- 67. During the enquiry it was also found that there was no police personnel in the Pension records by name Sri Syed Khasim son of Syed Ahmed. Therefore, these facts would go to show that the gift deed of 1355 Fasli is a tissue of arrant falsehood and nothing but it is a created document. The learned Senior Counsel would maintain that the Proceedings No.I2/6653/2004 dated 30-11-2004 of the Collector, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated that the endorsement does not constitute any right or title over the said land. It is for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to verify the legal ownership and possession of the land by the applicant before approving the plan for construction of building. It is specifically mentioned that the endorsement does not preclude cancellation of the endorsement and further action as per rules if it is found at later date that the land is Government. Further the endorsement was issued only for the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and subject to third party claims, court litigation if any. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the respondent No.1 and 2 are justified in recalling the ‘No Objection Certificate’, in view of the multiplicity of the proceedings with regard to title over the property. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: It is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of different extent of land in survey No.129/30 correlated to T.S.No.22, Block-K, Ward No.12 of Shaikpet village, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. They filed declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Hyderabad. Some of the petitioners were found to be non-surplus holders and some of them are found to be holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioners made a joint representation dated 01-9-2004 to the District Collector, Hyderabad, first respondent seeking for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ as required by the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, third respondent for sanction of building permission over an extent of 7792 sq.meters. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, as well as Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad submitted reports on 10- 09-2004 and 29-9-2004 respectively to the District Collector, Hyderabad – first respondent. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad, who is the second respondent considered the reports and issued endorsement in Proceedings No.12/6653/2004, dated 30-11-2004. The proceedings are addressed to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad while marking copy of the same to the petitioners. In the endorsement, the second respondent categorically stated that the subject land is not classified as Government land. While the mater stood thus, the Joint Collector issued letter No.11/6653/2004, dated 15-3-2005 requesting the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the Chief City Planner, the fourth respondent not to sanction building permission until further orders. Thereupon the petitioners submitted representation dated 13- 9-2005 to the District Collector, Hyderabad requesting him to cancel the letter No.11/6653/2004 dated 15-3-2005 issued another letter No.11/12/6653 dated 21-10-2005 whereunder the petitioners are informed that the request to withdraw the letter dated 15-2- 2005 is rejected and “no objection certificate” issued under proceedings dated 30-11-2004 has been recalled and cancelled. The Joint Collector also issued Proceedings No.11/12/6653, dated 21-10-2005 recalling “No objection Certificate” issued in respect of survey no.129/30. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, reads as follows: “In fact one Sri Anwarulla Pasha s/o: Abdulla Pasha filed the LGC case against objector herein Sri K. Amarender Reddy and others thereby claiming to be son of Sri Abdulla Vakil (Pattadar) and that alleged son and the said objector and persons trying alleged to grab part of land in Sy.No.129/30. All these facts casts cloud in the claim of the applicants and as such the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) granted earlier is recalled and cancelled. It is also found during enquiry that no title is passed to Sri K.Amarender Reddy or to his predecessor-in-title as alleged Sale Deed doc.No.252/1357 Fasli is stated to have not been registered by Registration Office and further there are no orders in favour of Sri K.Amarender Reddy conferring rights on the question lands by any forum. For the above said reasons, I am of the view that there is cloud to the ownership and possession of both the applicants and objector on the said property and until the said cloud is cleared on the ownership and possession and the title confirmed by any competent Court of Law, the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) issued in the survey number 129/30 in Shaikpet village and Shaikpet Mandal correlated to TS No.22, Block K, Ward No.12 to an extent of 7792 square meters sis recalled and cancelled”. 7. According to the appellant, the Joint Collector-2nd respondent has transgressed his jurisdiction and powers in observing that cloud is created on the ownership and possession and title of the petitioners over the property. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioners, it is appropriate to refer para-5 of the writ affidavit and it is thus; “I submit that pursuant to the application made by us for the construction on ‘The subject lands’ the 3rd respondent corporation is considering for granting permission on ‘The subject lands’ to us for effecting the construction on the subject lands. While the matter stood thus the 1st respondent issued letter NO.11/6653/2004 dt.15- 03-2005 (Annexure P7) addressed to the 3rd and 4th respondents requesting them not to sanction building permission until further orders. Aggrieved by the said letter No.11/6653/2004 dated 15-03-2005 (Annexure P7) of the 1st respondent submitted a representation dt. 13-9- 2005 (Annexure P8) to the 1st respondent requesting him to cancel his letter No. 11/6653/2004 dated 15-03-2005 ( Annexure P7). The 1st respondent issued another letter No.11/12/6653/2004 dated 21-10-2005 (Annexure P9) where under we are informed that our request to withdraw the letter of the 1st respondent dt. 15-03-2005 (Annexure P7) is rejected and the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the 1st respondent office dated 30-11- 2004 ( Annexure P4) is recalled and cancelled duly enclosing an order dt. 21-10-2005 ( Annexure P9) of the 2nd respondent. In the said order the 2nd respondent entertained the claims of third party and sitting in judgment of the claims of the third parties took the view that there is cloud to the ownership and possession between ourselves and the third parties. I submit that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of third parties and sit in judgment over the rival claims in respect of the ownership of the property much less the subject lands. This exercise of the 2nd respondent is nothing but exercising the power of a Civil Court. Hence respondent No.2 has transgressed its jurisdiction and power. I further submit that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to consider the rival claims of the third party to ‘The subject lands’ more so in view of the fact that all those rival claims set up by the third parties to ‘The subject lands’ were considered in detail by the Special Officer and Competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act vide proceedings NO. E2/1661/2004, dated 27-08- 2005 (Annexure P2) and the very same rival claims were rejected which became final even before the Statutory Appellate Authority. The Hon’ble High Court also while considering the Writ Petition No.1457 of 2004 filed by us also rejected every claim of those third parties who filed petition to implead them as party respondent to our writ petition. However, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction either to grant the ‘No Objection Certificate’ or to recall and to cancel the same and hence such granting of ‘no objection certificate’ and later on recalled and cancelled by 1st respondent shall not have any bearing on the 3rd and 4th respondents in considering for granting the permission for the construction over ’The subject land’ and the No Objection Certificate granted by the 1st respondent and later on recalled and cancelled by the 1st respondent shall not be binding on the 3rd and 4th respondents”. 8. In the main writ petition, the Respondent No.5 came to be impleaded as per orders in W.P.M.P.No. 31978 of 2005 dated 28-11-2005; respondent No.6 came to be impleaded as per orders in WPMP No. 31642 of 2005 dated 29-11-2005 and Respondents No.7 and 8 came to be impleaded as per orders in W.P.M.P.No.32393 of 2005 dated 29-11-2005 . 9. The 5th respondent in the writ petition stated that he purchased Ac. 3-13 guntas of land in Survey No.129/30 (old) Shaikpet village and mandal, Hyderabad district from D.Ramachandra Reddy under an agreement of sale cum registered power of attorney, and his vendor purchased the land from Abdulla Pasha under registered sale deed dated 26 Ardhibest 1357 Fasli. His vendors name was mutated in the revenue records. The State filed LGC No.129 of 1989 against his vendor and another in respect of 3837 square meters in T.S.No.18 and 21. The said L.G.C. ended in dismissal on 16-08-1993. The petitioners claim the property under oral gift dated 12-05-1961. Issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Government is not statutory requirement, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ as a matter of right from the respondents No. 1 and 2. He made series of representations to the official respondents to recall the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued in favour of the writ petitioners. The respondents No. 1 and 2, after hearing both the parties, recalled ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 30-11-2004 under proceedings dated 21-10-2005. Thus, the order impugned in the writ petition does not warrant interference. 10. The 6th respondent in the writ petition stated that she is the owner of house plot admeasuring 910 square yards in Survey No. 129/30 correlating to Survey No. 340 (new) in road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The said plot forms part of Women’s Co-operative House building Society of which she is a member. The society purchased an extent of Ac. 3-13 guntas in Survey No.129/30 of Shaikpet village, Hyderabad Hyderabad from V.V.Rao, V.Bhujanga Rao and Mrs. E.Shankaramma under a registered sale deed dated 23-2-1966. The vendors of the society purchased the said extent of land under a registered sale deed dated 28-12-1964 from Shaik Ahmed Amoodi who had purchased the land from one Mr. Abdullah Pasha. The society and others including herself filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction being O.S.No.106/1991 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. The suit ended in decree on 14-6-2004. The defendants therein challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.106 of 1991 by filing C.C.C.A.No.232 of 2004, wherein