THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17000 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.5380 of 2010 March 17, 2010 Between: Smt.Sirimalla Susheela, W/o.Late Shanker Lingam ... Petitioner And The District Collector, Adilabad District, Collectorate, Adilabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17000 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.5380 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: This common order shall dispose of both these interconnected writ petitions. In this order, the parties are referred to by their status in W.P.No.17000 of 2009 and petitioner in W.P.No.5380 of 2010, who is not a party in first writ petition, is referred to by her name, namely, Madhavi. The dispute in these writ petitions is with regard to the land admeasuring about Acs.4.35 guntas comprised in three sub division survey numbers of Tandur Village in Adilabad District. Petitioner’s husband, as a freedom fighter, was assigned land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in survey No.612/1 by proceedings dated 03.9.1991. He was allegedly in possession and cultivating the land, which was handed over to him after demarcation and localisation. In 2001, he died. Petitioner is his wife. She allegedly obtained pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds (PPB/TDs) in 2001 and got her name mutated in the revenue records. She allegedly cultivated the land from 2001-2006. She filed O.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad against Md.Arifuddin, Kaleemuddin and Peram Srinivas, who is the husband of Madhavi. The said suit was referred to Lok Adalat and an award was passed declaring petitioner as owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in survey No.612/1 situated at Tandur. Petitioner then made an application for survey of the land. It was not done. In the mean while, Madhavi purchased an extent of Acs.1.10 guntas in survey Nos.612/19 and 612/20 under registered sale deed dated 14.2.2006 from M/s.Mohammed Yaseen and M.A.Kareem. She alleges that her vendors are legal heirs of Ghulam Dastagir Khan, who is the owner of total extent of Acs.25.00 in survey Nos.612/19 and 612/20. She also allegedly obtained PPB/TDs from the third respondent, namely, Tahsildar, Tandur. According to her, petitioner was never in possession of the land and she alone was in possession of the land. As there is a dispute, second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) and by order dated 04.11.2006 directed the third respondent to take possession of the land. Accordingly, third respondent issued express memo dated 12.2.2007 informing that the land in survey Nos.612/1, 612/19 and 612/20 was taken into Government custody. The Mandal Revenue Inspector conducted panchanama on 23.2.2007 and took possession of the land. Questioning the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.3649 of 2007. This Court dismissed the same on 06.3.2007 observing that the petitioner may avail remedy under Section 397 Cr.PC by filing a revision before the Court of District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter the petitioner filed petition being Crl.P.No.2734 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the order dated 04.11.2006 issued by second respondent. This Court dismissed the same but directing the second respondent to dispose of the case in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. On 30.4.2009, petitioner’s son made a representation to the Joint Collector seeking a direction to third respondent to handover possession of Acs.4.00 in survey No.612 to petitioner. Alleging that fourth respondent completed survey of the land and issued supplementary sethwar and, therefore, non-delivery of the possession is illegal and arbitrary, petitioner filed W.P.No.17000 of 2009 on 17.8.2009. This Court admitted the writ petition on 18.8.2009 and gave interim direction to respondents to dispose of representation dated 30.4.2009. In the mean while, fourth respondent sent a report vide letter Rc.No.A4/331/2009, dated 21.1.2010, giving clarifications on the three points raised by the first respondent in letter dated 30.6.2009. Madhavi alleges that based on the report, respondents 1 to 3 are trying to handover possession of her land to petitioner. Therefore, Madhavi filed W.P.No.5380 of 2010, impeaching letter of fourth respondent and sketch prepared by him. She contends that survey of entire field in survey No.612 as well as survey of three sub- division numbers was not taken up, that supplementary sethwar was prepared illegally without notice to her and that when the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC are pending before the second respondent, delivery of possession to petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. The Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, filed counter in W.P.No.17000 of 2009 justifying non-delivery of possession to petitioner. It is stated that isolated entry of supplementary sethwar in the absence of separate supplementary sethwar for land purchased by Madhavi is not useful to second respondent to give a quietus to the issue and that the land is in possession of the Tahsildar. The dispute in relation to entire land in survey No.612 has been lucidly brought out in the counter and for ready reference, it is extracted below. I submit that Sy.No.612 totally measures 1357.31 Guntas of land as seen from Khasra 1954-1955 which includes 317.18 Patta land of Jagirdar and Maktadars and includes 966.39 Guntas of Govt Parapoke Land. The Sy.No.612 also comprises 03.01 Guntas of Railway Department land and 14.13 of KK land. All these categories of lands from a compact block. No marks or pillers or topographical marking maps are available to set apart the Patta lands from the Govt land. Even so called Jagirdars and Maktadars are not sure as to where their Patta lands are located. The entire survey number was never got surveyed and no supplementary sethwars were issued as such the boundary disputes are arising day to day in view of escalation of prices of lands. The Jagirdars, Maktadars were declared as surplus land holders under land ceiling act and surrendered out of their survey numbers only and was also assigned under land ceiling act to land less poors. Some of the land less poors were assigned Govt lands under Central Assignment Policy. The Maktadars or Jagirdars are not in possession of their lands and most of the Patta lands were encroached by others. Number of purchasers are surfacing in the said Sy.Nos. Some are having possession others have not indentified their lands, due to non-availability of Survey marks on field. Taking undue advantage of non-survey of Sy.No.612, the Pattedars are resorting to sell the lands to innocent people knowingly and one piece of land is being sold to more than one person. A single piece of land is involved in multiple sales. To resolve the problem permanently, the entire Sy.No. requires to be re- surveyed as per enjoyment and every one’s holding should be earmarked in the village map by issuing supplementary sethwar in respect of all enjoyers holdings. The isolated supplementary sethwar will not solve the problems, as number of cases of land disputes arised out of Sy.No.612. There is a supplementary sethwar issued by the Assistant Director (S&LR), Adilabad in his file No.A5/242/2001 prepared in 1988 which bears Sub-Division only in respect of formation of approach road to Choutapalli which contains Sy.Nos.612/1, 612/2, 612/3, 612/4 and 612/5. The remaining area was shown as blank because it was not surveyed. The copy of above supplementary sethwar was copied and fictitious sub-division was made so as to suite the land which was intended to be grabbed and the same are being produced before the officials. The original supplementary sethwar contains sub-division numbers 612/1, 612/2, 612/3, 612/4 and 612/5 where as the manipulated copy of supplementary sethwar contains sub-division Nos.612/1 to 46. It requires immediate verification with reference to original file No.A5/242/01 of Assistant Director (S&LR), Adilabad. Hence, the interim order needs to be vacated. Petitioner’s son and her General Power of Attorney filed reply affidavit almost reiterating the writ averments. In the reply affidavit the allegation of third respondent that supplementary sethwar was fictitious is denied. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, filed counter in W.P.No.5380 of 2010. It is stated that Madhavi is assignee and not a purchaser and that as per the advise of third respondent the entire survey No.612 has to be re-surveyed and revision survey supplementary sethwar has to be prepared for resolving the dispute between petitioner and Madhavi. It is further stated as follows. The entire survey No.612 is under possession of Government till today. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad through letter No.G/319/2006, dated 02.1.2009 fixed the joint inspection. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tandur, Mandal Surveyor, Tandur, Deputy Inspector of Survey, Asifabad were jointly inspected the survey No.612 of Tandur village, Tandur Mandal on 08.1.2008 and 09.1.2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued instructions to the Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor and Deputy Inspector of Survey to conduct the detailed survey as per enjoyment of the land in survey No.612 of Tandur Village. Due to heavy land acquisition work of Irrigation Projects, the survey staff was not attended for the said survey. The counsel for petitioner submits that from 1991 when the land was assigned to the husband and after death of her husband, the land has been in their possession and, therefore, the Sub Collector ought not to have directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the land pending the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. Secondly he submits that a representation was made on 30.4.2009 finding out possession and, therefore, the same ought to have been considered having regard to the valid assignment in favour of petitioner’s husband. The counsel for Madhavi submits that as long as the matter is not finally decided by the second respondent under Section 145 Cr.PC based on the report of the Assistant Director dated 21.1.2010, possession cannot be handed over to petitioner. He also relies on the averments in the counter of Assistant Director wherein he has stated that entire land in survey No.612 is to be surveyed. The land assigned to petitioner even according to her is in survey No.612/1. Though originally the assignment was made in different field number, it was mentioned that it is in survey No.612/1 whereas Madhavi purchased the land comprised in survey Nos.612/19 and 612/20. When second respondent passed orders on 04.11.2006, it is noticed that there is a dispute as to who is in possession of which land. The petitioner even alleges that the land or part of the land purchased by Madhavi is actually the land which was assigned to her husband and, therefore, Madhavi at present cannot assertively claim any right based on a supplementary sethwar. Whatever be the controversy, the Tahsildar, Adilabad, and the Assistant Director, Adilabad, agree that no supplementary sethwar was prepared in respect of survey Nos.612/19 and 612/20 and it is doubtful whether a supplementary sethwar was prepared for survey No.612/1 especially when the Assistant Director asserts that the entire extent of land admeasuring 1355.16 guntas is in Government possession and that it is proposed to conduct a joint inspection by all officials. Therefore at this stage conclusively it cannot be said that the land, which is assigned to petitioner’s husband is earmarked or localized notwithstanding the claim that she has been in possession. In view of the official version, one cannot attach much importance to the pahanis for the periods 2001 – 2006 and other connected adangals for the earlier period. It would be in the interest of all concerned to allow the land to be remained in possession of the Government till a thorough survey is conducted and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC reach finality. Therefore both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner. The Sub-Collector, Asifabad, may direct an expeditious joint survey by the officials of Revenue and Survey departments in the presence of rival parties and thereafter pass appropriate orders under Section 145 Cr.PC. If any party is aggrieved thereby, their only remedy is to approach the Civil Court as the case may be. While the matter is pending before the second respondent, the question of handing over possession to petitioner or the opposite party does not arise as it would not be in the interest of either of them. The second respondent is also directed to dispose of the matter under Section 145 Cr.PC within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ March 17, 2010 (V.V.S. RAO, J) YS