IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18833 of 2001 Between: 1. Smt Rajabai (died) per LRs 2. Smt Vimala Devi 3. Kailash Chand 4. Rajender Pershad 5. Nirmal Kumar ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. Jagir Administrator, Office of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements. 2. The Collector, Hyderabad District 3. The Mandal Revene Officer, Bahadurpura Mandal 4. The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to release property bearing No.23-6-3 & 4 enclosed by stone walls and compound with dilapidated buildings, old tenements and an appurtenant land admeasuring in all 4996 square yards (for short “the property”), popularly known as ‘Raja Ganga Pershad Devidi’ situated at Hari Bowli Road, Shalibanda, Hyderabad, to the petitioners; to direct respondents 2 to 4 to send no objection to respondent No.1 for release of the property and to direct respondent No.1 to attorn all the tenants in occupation of the property to the petitioners in order to pay future rents to them. In his aﬃdavit, the General Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners averred that the property was purchased by the petitioners from the successors of late Maharaja Kishan Pershad, who inherited the same as the reversionary heir of the estate of Rani Nanu Bibi, belonging to Raja Nanak Baksh as the last male holder. The property was purchased by the petitioners under three registered sale deeds dated 31-03- 1982; 03-05-1983 and 22-06-1984. It is further averred that the property was under the custody and supervision of respondent No.1, who was looking after the jagir estate of late Maharaja Kishan Pershad, hereditary Peshkar and Prime Minister of erstwhile State of H.E.H.Nizam, Hyderabad and that the same was entrusted to respondent No.1 for supervision under order dated 26-11-1990 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1248 of 1990. From the material ﬁled along with the writ petition, it is evident that after issuing a public notiﬁcation, respondent No.1 issued release order on 14-03-1987, releasing the property in favour of the petitioners. The said order was questioned by one Smt Padam Raj in an appeal ﬁled under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli and the said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 07-01-1988 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable and the parties were directed to approach the Civil Court. The said two orders were questioned by Smt Padam Raj in W.P.No.2273 of 1988. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 13-08-1990 on the premise that it is difficult to adjudicate whether the release order passed by respondent No.1 comprehends any private property belonging to late Rani Nanu Bibi and that which part of release order comprehends private property and which part comprehends jagir property require detailed examination, probably requiring an enquiry into the facts. This Court, thus, while dismissing the writ petition left Smt Padam Raj free to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. The said order was questioned in Writ Appeal No.1248 of 1990 by Smt Padam Raj. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal by order dated 26-11-1990, whereby the release order was set aside. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the order hereunder. “The properties being the private properties of Jagirdar, the ﬁrst appellate authority has held that even Regulation 18 does not apply to the properties. In view of the above factual and statutory position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, while allocating the parties to a Civil Court, should have set aside the order of the Jagir Administrator dated 14-03-1987 insofar as Jagir Administrator released the following items in favour of the respondents: 1. House bearing door No.23-6-3 & 23-6-4, popularly known as Deodi Ganga Pershad, located near Shalibanda, Hyderabad. 2. Gold pieces weighing 184 grms and 300 milligrams, in the safe custody of the State Bank of Hyderabad. 3. A steel almirah and 4. the rent collected in respect of door No.23-6-3 & 23-6-4. The said order of release is therefore set aside. If pursuant to the said order of release, the Jagir Administrator has handed over physical possession of any of the above said properties, it will be open to the Jagir Administrator to take back possession from the parties to whom he had given possession. The possession will be continued with the Jagir Administrator on behalf of the Revenue Department till such time the question of title in respect of the above properties is ﬁnally adjudicated. In respect of the collection of rents and other matters of administration, it will be open to the contesting parties to move the Jagir Administrator or the Revenue Department for appropriate action. Nothing in this order passed by us shall be construed as an adjudication of title of the contesting parties.” Following the disposal of the writ appeal, Smt Padam Raj ﬁled O.S.No.1109 of 1990 in the Court of the II-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for passing a decree for proper administration of the estate of late Rani Nanu Bibi comprising the suit schedule ‘B’ properties and also other properties as and when they were found to belong to the estate against defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 in the writ petition); to render the accounts and deliver all those properties to the plaintiﬀ who is the lawful inheritor and heir to the private estate of late Rani Nanu Bibi consequently rejecting the alleged sale deeds obtained by defendants 2 and 3, pertaining to the property and for a decree of perpetual injunction against defendants 1 to 8 (petitioners and respondent No.1) and restraining them from alienating or transferring or creating any lien which shall be adverse to the interests of the plaintiﬀ over the property pertaining to the estate of late Rani Nanu Bibi. The said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 28-04-2001 on the ground that the plaintiﬀ has endorsed on the plaint that she was not pressing the suit and the impleaded petitioners in I.A.No.176 of 2001 also made a similar endorsement and that as the matter was settled out of the Court. Immediately after the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners claimed to have approached respondent No.1 for release of the property in their favour. As no order was passed by respondent No.1, they filed the present writ petition. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 ﬁled separate counter-aﬃdavits. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, while denying the petitioners’ claim that they are the absolute owners of the property, he, inter alia, pointed out that the petitioners have not got any decree from the competent Court of law declaring that the vendors of the said property were the original legal heirs of late Rani Nanu Bibi and that they are the absolute owners of the schedule mentioned property. He further averred that as O.S.No.1109 of 1990 was not adjudicated on merits, the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1248 of 1990 stand good and therefore, the schedule property should be continued with respondent No.1. In the absence of any declaration given by the competent Civil Court regarding the succession of late Rani Nanu Bibi and the title in respect of the property in favour of the petitioners, the property shall continue to be in the custody and possession of respondent No.1 till such time as a decree to that eﬀect is passed. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that town survey was conducted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad during the period 1964-65. A notiﬁcation under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued inviting all the persons to participate in the enquiry for determining the boundaries. The schedule land was surveyed as T.S.No.35, Block ‘A’, Ward 218 of Shaher-E-Hyderabad Village and is recorded as Government Land (G.Board of Revenue) in column No.20 of TSLR and that after completing the survey, a notiﬁcation was published under Section 13 of the Act in District Gazette No. 26, dated 12-05-1977. It is further averred that the entries made in the town survey records became ﬁnal and conclusive proof unless they are modiﬁed by a decree of Civil Court within three years from the date of Gazette notiﬁcation as stipulated under Section 14 of the Act and no person has filed any suit within three years from the date of publication of the notiﬁcation in the Gazette under Section 13 of the Act and that since the time of survey, the land is vested with the Government. On this premise, respondents 2 and 3 claimed that schedule property is a Government property as per column No.20 of the town survey land records. At the hearing, Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that release order dated 14-03- 1987, issued by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners, was set aside by the Division Bench on the sole ground that Smt Padam Raj raised an objection by making a claim over a part of the property released in favour of the petitioners through late Rani Nanu Bibi and that the learned Single Judge having relegated the parties to the Civil Court should have set aside the release order and possession should have been continued with respondent No.1 until such time as the question of title in respect of the property is ﬁnally adjudicated. He submitted that with the withdrawal of the suit by Smt Padam Raj, the dispute regarding title ceased to exist and respondent No.1 insist to have issued the release order in favour of the petitioners. The substance of the objection of respondent No.1 as reﬂected in his counter-aﬃdavit as discussed above is that as the Civil Court has not adjudicated the suit on merits, and given declaration in favour of the petitioners regarding title over the property, the direction given by the Division Bench to respondent No.1 to hold possession of the property, continues till such time as such a declaration of title is given by the competent Civil Court. Of course, as far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, they have taken the stand that in the survey conducted during 1964-65, this property was shown as Government property and that the said entry having become ﬁnal, it should be deemed that the property is vested in the Government. In paragraph 7 of the written statement ﬁled by respondent No.1, who was defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1109 of 1990, he categorically averred that while the plaintiﬀ failed to appear and produce any evidence in support of her claim of succession to the property, respondent No.1 passed the order of release of the property from the administrative supervision in favour of the petitioners after completion of all the formalities such as due veriﬁcation of succession certiﬁcate and also unconditional undertakings from the vendors and the vendees. This stand taken by respondent No.1 reveals that he neither disputed nor doubted the title of the petitioners to the property. In my considered view, respondent No.1 has not properly understood the true purport of the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1248 of 1990 and the context in which it is made. As noted hereinabove, the said order was passed in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition ﬁled by Smt Padam Raj, who approached this Court with a competing claim that she succeeded to a part of the property. In that context, the Division Bench held that when there is a dispute regarding title, respondent No.1 should not have released the property. The fact that the suit ﬁled by Smt Padam Raj was dismissed as withdrawn amply indicates that inter se dispute regarding the title ceased to exist. It is not in dispute that except Smt Padam Raj, no one raised any objection to the public notice issued by respondent No.1 prior to the release order passed by him on 14-03-1987. This fact, coupled with the concession made by respondent No.1 in his written statement regarding the entitlement of the petitioners, placed beyond any doubt the entitlement of the petitioners for release of the property. The technical objection on the basis of which release order dated 14-03-1987 was set aside by the Division Bench ceased to subsist with the dismissal of the civil suit ﬁled by the rival claimant. Viewed from this perspective, the reasoning of respondent No.1 that until the Civil Court declares the petitioners’ title, the property shall not be released in favour of the petitioners is wholly meritless and hence, the same cannot be sustained. As regards the objection of respondents 2 and 3, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, mere mutation of names in the revenue records does not determine title and that they are relied upon only to ascertain as to who is in occupation of the property (see Nirman Singh vs. Lal Rudra Partab[1]). If respondents 2 and 3 claim title over the property, they ought to have ﬁled objections to the public notiﬁcation issued earlier by respondent No.1. It is not their pleaded case that at any point of time, they approached respondent No.1 to release the property in favour of the Government. It is only by providence that the petitioners made them as parties to this writ petition in which for the ﬁrst time, they came out with the version in their counter-aﬃdavit that the Government is the owner of the property on the basis of the entries in the town survey record. This plea, in my considered view, cannot be countenanced to deny release of property in favour of the petitioners at this length of time. If respondents 2 and 3 claim that the property belongs to the Government, they are not precluded from approaching the competent Civil Court and seek a declaration to that effect. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd September, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 1926 PC 100