IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13462 of 1999 Between: Smt. Raj DularyVerma W/o. Sri Raghubir Prasad Verma H.NO. 86, SRT, Prakashnagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Dist. Collector R.R.Dist. Hyderabad 2 Mandal Revenue Officer Balanagar (M), R.R.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction of a residential building by the petitioner in plot No.48, H.No.1-8- 506/48,situated in Survey Nos. 194/2 to 194/5, Prakasam Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad with the petitioner is constructing in accordance with the sanction obtained from the Municipal corp.., of Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the ConstituionerIndia and consequently direct the respondentsherein not to interfere with the construction of a residential building by the petitioner in Plot No.48, H.No.1-8-506/48,situated in Survey Nos. 194/2 to 194/5, Prakasam Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad which the petitioner is constructing in accordance with the sanction obtained from the Municipal Corp., of Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13462 of 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction of the petitioner’s residential building in Plot No.48, House No.1-8-506/48, situated in Survey No.194/2 to 194/5, Prakasham Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have purchased a building constructed over 271 square yards of land under a registered sale deed No.847/95 dated 25.03.1995. It is his case that his vendor had, in turn, purchased the said property under registered sale deed No.1948/82 dated 08.10.1982. Petitioner would contend that the property which he purchased under a registered sale deed was his exclusive property and that, after obtaining permission from the municipal authorities and on receipt of their sanction, he had started constructing a new building. It is his grievance that when the construction came up to the lintel level the 2nd respondent had visited the site and had asked him to stop the construction. The petitioner would refer to the Government Memo dated 22.04.1998 to contend that in respect of Survey Nos.194/1 to 194/12 of Begumpet village, the Government could not exercise any rights. It is his case that the Government had no right to stop the construction over his residential building and that, even if the land was Government land, the Government should take appropriate steps which are available to it in law but not to highhandedly direct him to stop construction. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the lands in Survey Nos.194/1 to 194/12 are Paigah lands, that succession was granted in favour of “Lady Vicar” on 13.10.1980, that on her death the properties were managed by the Paigah and later handed over to the Court of Wards, that the properties had been withdrawn in 1955 from the Court of Wards and confirmed by notification No.341 of 1959 dated 17.02.1959, that the heirs of Lady Vicar had filed a petition claiming partition of the property in O.S.No.47 of 1965 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and that the Hon’ble Court passed orders on 10.08.1979 holding that the lands bearing Survey Nos.194/1 to 194/12 of Begumpet village were Inam lands and that they were advised to take appropriate proceedings before the Authority or the Tribunal under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 to establish their rights. It is stated that the Inam Tribunal-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella had taken up all the claims pending before the Tribunal and had passed orders dated 25.10.1997 declaring Survey Nos.194/2 to 194/5, under Section 3 of the Act as Government lands. It is stated that the Inams Tribunal had examined all the documents filed by the claimants therein and had passed orders stating that the land in Survey Nos.194/2 to 194/5 was tank bed land of Hussainsagar Lake on the date of vesting i.e, 01.11.1973 and had not been used by the claimants for their personal cultivation. The Inam Tribunal ordered that the entire land in Survey Nos.194/2 to 194/5 admeasuring Acs.6.32 gnts. of Begumpet village stood vested in the Government under Section 3 of the Act. It is stated that the property in question is situated in Survey Nos.194/2 to 194/5 and that the petitioner cannot claim any right or title over the suit land. It is contended that one Sri Ch.Achaiah had filed a claim petition before the Inams Tribunal in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.194/2 to 194/5 and that the Inams Tribunal, in its order dated 25.10.1997, had held that the land was tank bed land of Hussainsagar lake on the date of vesting and was not cultivated by the claimants. While admitting that the properties of Lady Vicar had been released on 17.02.1959, the 2nd respondent states that the Civil Court, in O.S.No.47 of 1965 dated 10.08.1979, had declared that the lands in Begumpet were Inam lands and that it had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The 2nd respondent would contend that the proceedings of the Inams Tribunal dated 25.10.1997 are binding in respect of the lands in question and that the petitioner had encroached upon the suit lands and, as such, he was asked not to commence construction. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent had not put him on notice before he had directed the petitioner to stop construction. The case of the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, is that, since it is Government land and the petitioner is an encroacher, he does not have the right to make any construction on the said property. The order of the Inams Tribunal dated 25.10.1997 does indicate that the lands in question were Inam lands which stood vested in the Government under Section 3 of the Act. Permitting the petitioner to proceed with construction of a building on lands which seem to belong to the Government, would not only adversely affect the interest of the Government but would also be contrary to public interest. Since, however, the petitioner claims title through his vendor, who in turn, is said to have purchased the property in 1982, it is but appropriate that it is left open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as are available to him in law to establish his title over the said property before he commences construction of a building thereupon. Since the relief sought for in this writ petition, which is to injunct the respondents from restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the construction, cannot be granted, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ 13.08.2008 GS