THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Appeal Nos.513 and 514 of 2009, 208 of 2010 And Writ Petition No.3445 of 2009 Date: 11th April, 2011 W.A.No.513 of 2009 Between: M/s.Godavari Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 86-A, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Sri V.Chinta Rao …Appellant And 1. Fareed Hussain Khan & others. ….Respondents *** W.A.No.514 of 2009 Between: 1. Mohammed Baqar Khan & Others …Appellants And 1. M/s.Godavari Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 86-A, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Sri V.Chinta Rao & Others. ….Respondents *** W.A.No.208 of 2010 Between: Saboorunnisa Begum …Appellant And 1. M/s.Godavari Cooperative House Building Society ltd., 86-A, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Sri V.Chinta Rao & Others. ….Respondents *** W.P.No.3445 of 2009 Between: Fareed Hussain Khan …Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. & Others ….Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Appeal Nos.513 and 514 of 2009, 208 of 2010 And Writ Petition No.3445 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) These three Writ Appeals being W.A.Nos.513, 514 of 2009, 208 of 2010 and Writ Petition being W.P.No.3445 of 2009 relate to transfer of rights over the land pursuant to the Policy called “The Andhra Pradesh Transfer of Rights to certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned Government Lands Policy, 2008”. 2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition is substantially the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. 3. M/s.Godavari Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) is registered in the year 1981. One Mir Iqbal Ali Khan claimed to be the allottee of 10 acres of land in Survey No.129/34/1 of Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in the year 1931. He sold the land to A.Raghunath under a registered sale deed dated 03.02.1966. The Society purchased 10 acres of land from A.Raghunath under an agreement of sale dated 22.01.1982. Mr.A.Raghunath faced criminal prosecution on the accusations that there was no land bearing Survey No.129/34/1 in Shaikpet village and that there was no person by name Mir Iqbal Ali Khan, who executed the sale deed dated 03.02.1966 in his favour and that he trespassed into the land dispossessing one Abdul Baqur Khan who was in occupation of the land and brought into existence the said sale deed. The committal Court i.e., IV City Magistrate, City Criminal Court-cum-Special Magistrate for SPE Cases, Hyderabad discharged A.Raghunath and three others for offences punishable under the Registration Act and the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 04.10.1972 passed in P.R.C.No.9 of 1971. The State (through Special Police Establishment, CIAII, New Delhi) filed Criminal Revision Petition No.142 of 1974 on the file of the Metropolitan Additional Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, at Hyderabad. The said Criminal Revision Petition ended in dismissal on 18.12.1974. The land came to be assigned to the Andhra Pradesh Non-Residence Indian Re-Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘ANRICH’) on 15.12.1982 and a panchanama came to be drafted on 17.12.1982 recording delivery of the assigned land to the ANRICH. The Society and A.Raghunath filed W.P.No.9414 of 1982 questioning the allotment of land to ANRICH. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed and the State Government unsuccessfully carried the matter in Writ Appeal. A batch of writ appeals being W.A.Nos.859 and 872 of 1991, W.A.No.1118 of 1996 filed by the State Government and certain private parties came to be allowed, by order dated 13.02.2001. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said batch of writ appeals reads as hereunder: “As there was unanimity in the view taken by all the three judges that G.O.Ms.No.942, Revenue (Q) Department, dated 23.6.1983, and the consequential proceedings in Rc.No.F4/3049/82, dated 15.12.1982 and also the assignment of the land to the ANRIC in proceedings Rc.F4/3037/81, dated 15.12.1982, are not in accordance with law, they are quashed and the parties are given liberty to establish their rights in a proper judicial forum. Regarding possession, Parvatha Rao J. opined that the material sought to be relied upon by the respondents in support of their contention with regard to the title, possession and adverse possession has to be proved and established. While keeping those questions open, the learned judge agreed with me in directing the status quo to be maintained in respect of the lands in question till final determination of the question of title and possession is made by a proper forum. As per the majority opinion, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question till the contravention is resolved by a proper forum. Coming to the plea of the respondents seeking a direction to the Government to regularize the suit schedule properties to them at a reasonable market rate though the Government rejected their application in pursuance of the order, dated 29.8.2000, we still feel that as the dispute is pending for several years in the courts without finality and there is further possibility of dragging on the proceedings for some more decades in the event of either of the parties approaching the Court of law to establish their rights, to put a quietus to the issue more so in the light of the orders passed by the government from time to time in favour of various persons where under illegal occupants were regularized, we direct the Government to reconsider the issue to consider the feasibility of regularizing the lands in question to the respondents at a reasonable market rate, if necessary by inviting the representatives of the respondent – society for negotiations to arrive at the reasonable market value. It is not a pious hope but wish of this court to do complete justice between the parties. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Supreme Court in B.C.CHATURVEDI vs. UNION OF INDIA ([1995] 6 SCC 749), wherein their Lordships held: “High Court, being a Court of plenary Jurisdiction, has inherent power to do complete justice between the parties similar to Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution”. To the same effect are the judgments of this Court in BADRUKA COLLEGE OF C & A vs. STATE OF A.P. ((1997 (1) ALD 282 (FB)) and D.SATYANARAYANA vs. N.T.RAMA RAO (AIR 1988 A.P.144 (F.B.). In the result, the writ appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.” The State unsuccessfully carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10413-10415/2001 dated 23.11.2001. Thereafter, the Society filed C.C.No.654 of 2002 complaining disobedience of the order dated 13.02.2001 passed in W.A.No.1118 of 1996 and batch. The Contempt Case came to be disposed of on 24.12.2003 directing the parties to maintain status quo in all respects including the possession. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008, framing certain guidelines for transfer of rights on certain occupations/encroachments of specified categories of unassigned government lands situated in the State by way of structures or otherwise, on payment basis. The policy is called “The Andhra Pradesh, Transfer of Rights to certain specified categories of occupants of unassigned government lands Policy, 2008”. One of the conditions to claim benefit under the said G.O. is that the party approaching the government with a request for transfer of rights shall withdraw all the cases and should give an undertaking to pay the amount as fixed by the government for transfer of rights. For better appreciation, we may reproduce the said condition as set out in para 11 (A)(vi) of the said G.O., which reads as hereunder: “ In cases where there is a dispute between Government and private party/parties over the title/ownership of a piece of land or structure which is pending in either Land Grabbing Court or High Court or in other Courts and if the party comes forward with a request for Transfer of Rights, the same shall be considered subject to condition that the case in the Court shall be withdrawn and the party/parties gives an undertaking to pay the amount as fixed by the Government for Transfer of Rights of such lands.” The Society filed applications dated 29.08.2008, 27.09.2008 and 30.09.2008 for transfer of rights of land admeasuring 10 acres in Survey No.129/34/1 Corresponding Sy.No.403, T.S.No.1/1/3&4, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Along with the said applications, the Society enclosed the registered sale deed dated 03.02.1966, agreement of sale dated 22.01.1982, letters of allotment in favour of its members, receipts issued by the Electricity Department evidencing payment of electricity bills, municipal receipts, land cess pass-book. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, under letter in Lr.No.E/16099/2009, dated 09.01.2009, addressed to the Collector, Hyderabad District, informed that the documents placed on record are not sufficient to consider transfer of rights in respect of 10 acres of land situated in Survey No.129/34/1. In a way, he has not proposed for consideration of the applications filed by the Society for transfer of rights. Consequently, the District Level Committee constituted under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008, deferred the consideration of the applications of the society. Hence, the society filed W.P.No.3938 of 2009 against (1) the State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad; 2) The District Level Committee, constituted under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008, rep. by its Chair Person Collector, Hyderabad District; 3) The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad and 4) The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents to defer the applications dated 29.08.2008, 27.09.2008 and 30.09.2008 made by the petitioner, its vendor and other Members of the petitioner Society (in all 120 applications) under G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008, seeking regularization (transfer of rights) of land in an extent of Ac.10.00 situated in Sy.No.129/34/1, Corresponding Sy.No.403, T.S.No.1/1/3&4 (as claimed by the Government), Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in spite of the order dated 13.02.2001 made in W.A.Nos.1118 of 1996 and batch as confirmed by order dated 23.11.2001 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.A.(Civil) No.10413 to 415 of 2001, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble Court in the above Writ Appeals and as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith consider the application made for regularization by accepting reasonable market value and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 02.03.2009 directing the petitioner Society to furnish any further material in its possession or to bring to the notice of the District Level Committee any directions issued by this Court in this regard; and as and when such material is furnished, the District Level Committee shall take the same in to account and pass fresh orders within one week thereafter. It shall also be open to the District Level Committee to indicate its view as to the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence by giving an opportunity to the petitioner Society. Assailing the order passed in W.P.No.3938 of 2009, 1) Mohammed Baqar Khan, 2) Fareed Hussain Khan; 3) Sikander Hussain Khan, 4) Obaid Hussain Khan and 5) Mahmood Hussain Khan filed Writ Appeal No.514 of 2009, after obtaining leave vide order dated 9.4.2009 passed in WAMP No.802 of 2009. 4. One Saboorunnisa Begum also filed Writ Apepal No.208 of 2010 assailing the order dated 02.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.3938 of 2009, after obtaining leave as per order dated 29.03.2010 passed in WAMP No.1277 of 2009. 5. Fareed Hussain Khan, Sikander Hussain Khan, Obaid Hussain Khan and Mahbood Hussain Khan claim plot Nos.8 and 9 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, being legal heirs of Moulvi Abdul Basith Khan. According to them, Moulvi Abdul Basith Khan purchased Plot Nos.8 and 9 from Sarfekhas Mubarak and they being the legal heirs of Moulvi Abdul Basith Khan are entitled for regularization of their possession. They submitted an application dated 17.01.2009 for transfer of rights over the land, by invoking the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008. There being no action on their applications, they filed W.P.No.2034 of 2009. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 11.02.2009 directing the District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Assailing the order passed in W.P.No.2034 of 2009, the Society filed Writ Appeal No.513 of 2009 after obtaining leave as per order dated 9.4.2009 passed in WAMP No. 927 of 2009. 6. Fareed Hussain Khan, 2) Sikander Hussain Khan, 3) Obaid Hussain Khan and 4) Mahmood Hussain Khan filed W.P.No.3445 of 2009 against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad; 2) Special Secretary, Government of A.P., Revenue Department, Hyderabad; 3) The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad; 4) The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, declaring their action in trying to allot the land belonging to them admeasuring Ac.6.16 gts. in Plot No.8 and Ac.3.14 gts in Plot No.9 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality corresponding to Town Survey no.1/1/1 of Ward 10, Block ‘H’, situated on Rod No.10, Banjara Hills in favour of M/s.Godavari Cooperative House Building Society, and Sri A.Rghunath, as illegal, malafide and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the Society/appellant in W.A.No.513 of 2009, and Sri Mohmood Ali, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP No.3445 of 2009 and appellants in W.A.Nos.514 of 2009 and 208 of 2010; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents in all the matters. 8. The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in Writ Appeal No.513 of 2009. 9. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/society submits that the observations made by this Court in earlier writ petitions and writ appeals do not give any room for ambiguity with regard to possession of the appellant/society in respect of Ac.10-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.129/34/1 of Shaikpet village, Banjarahills, Hyderabad and therefore, there is no justification for the District Level Committee constituted under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Assn. Pot) Dated 16.2.2008 for not considering transfer of rights in its favour. The learned senior counsel refers certain observations made in the earlier writ petitions, writ appeals and contempt case. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the appellant/society placed on record the sale deed dated 02.6.1968, which is standing in the name of its vendor and agreement of sale dated 22.1.1982, assessment register for property tax, library cess, property tax notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Tax Department) for the year 1961-1995 and the receipts issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and pattadar passbook standing in the name of the vendor of the appellant/society and these documents clearly establish the possession of the appellant-society and its vendor over the land in respect of which transfer of rights has been sought for and in which case, the rejection endorsement dated 20.1.2009 is wholly unjustified. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the material brought on record in W.P.No.3938 of 2009 and directed the District Level Committee to consider the petitions of the appellant/society and pass appropriate orders. The learned senior counsel took us to certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.859 of 1991, W.A.No.872 of 1991 and W.A.No.1118 of 1996 and contempt case No.654 of 2002. In a nutshell, the appellant-society’s plea is that irrespective of their setting up title under various documents, it claims transfer of rights pursuant to the Government’s policy called “the Andhra Pradesh Transfer of Rights to Certain Specified categories of Occupants of Unassigned Government Lands Policy, 2008”. To claim the benefit, certain documents are required to be placed on record as proof of occupation. Manner in which the occupation can be established is detailed in para (5) of the policy, which reads as hereunder:- “(5) MANNER OF ESTABLISHING OCCUPATION: The manner of establishing occupation shall be by production of any of the following documents:- a) Registered document of purchase b) Electricity connection c) Construction permission from a Local Body/Competent Authority d) Receipt of payment of property tax e) Water supply connection document f) Household supply Card g) Telephone connection document (Note:- The above mentioned documents must be in the name of the applicant). 10. According to the appellant/society, it has complied para (5) of the policy and in which case, the applications submitted by the appellant-society are required to be considered before the District Level Committee for transfer of rights over the land in dispute. 11. Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the appellant-society was not in existence as on 28.1.1976 and therefore, it was not entitled to make any application for transfer of rights in respect of the lands. He would also contend that payment of meager amount of Rs.39.77 ps. in respect of house bearing No.120/110 said to be existing in the land as claimed by the appellant-society cannot enure to the benefit of all the members of the society. The object of G.O.Ms.No.166 is to transfer rights in favour of persons who belong to weaker sections, slum dwellers, low and middle income group persons, who are in occupation of smaller extents and not to people like members of the appellant-society, who claims to be in occupation of 10 acres of land. He would also contend that the sale deed dated 3.2.1966 is hit by the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and even if the sale deed is proved, it relates to a non- existing survey number i.e., 129/3/34/1. According to him, there is no land existing with survey number 129/34/1. With regard to certain observations made in Criminal Revision Case No.142 of 1974 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, it is contended by the learned counsel that those observations do not bind the civil Court and in which case either conviction or acquittal in a criminal case is irrelevant in adjudicating rights of the parties over the land in dispute. Learned counsel would contend that certain observations made by the Commissioner in his report filed in W.A.No.1118 of 1996 have no legal entity as the Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. When the appellant-society is not clothed with the title, the question of allotting the plots to its members does not arise. According to the learned counsel, when the applications for transfer of rights in their favour is rejected on the ground that the land is required for public purpose, question of considering the applications submitted by the appellant-society by the Government does not arise and in which case, the order passed in W.P.No.3938 of 2009 directing the District Level Committee to consider the applications of the appellant-society and Raghnath is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and others [1]. In the said decision, ingredients of a valid gift by a mohammadan have been detailed. The proposition of law laid down in the cited decision is not much relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in this batch of writ appeals and the writ petition, since we are not going into merits on either side. 12. In response, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-society submits that the appellant-society simply referred G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 28.1.1981 in the pleadings but regularization of possession is not based on the said G.O but the same is based on G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Assn. Pot) Dated 16.2.2008. He would also submit that the appellant-society and Raghunath sought for regularization of their possession by invoking the provisions of “the Andhra Pradesh Transfer of Rights to Certain Specified categories of Occupants of Unassigned Government Lands Policy, 2008”. Fareed Hussain Khan and others have not placed any material on record to substantiate their possession over the land in dispute in which case, the very direction to the Government in W.P.No.3445 of 2009 to consider the applications cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel stressed on the point that the appellant-society has been litigating with the Government right from the year 1982 onwards. By virtue of the status quo orders granted by this Court in various proceedings, the appellant-society could not develop the land in question nor could it register the same in favour of its members. Therefore, the documents mentioned in G.O which are required to be submitted by the members, will obviously not be in the name of the members. To non-suit the members on the said ground is hyper-technical. The members of the society are claiming through the society and whatever documents in favour of the society or the predecessors- in-tile should enure to the benefit of the members of the society by virtue of allotment made in their favour. All the documents placed on record clinchingly prove the possession of the appellant- society. The members, therefore, cannot be non-suited on such a flimsy ground. We do not seek to express any opinion on merits. 13. However, we have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It would not be fair and proper for a Writ Court to enquire into the disputed questions of title and adverse possession. The appellant-society and the respondents 1 to 4 have been claiming title over the land in dispute. However, in view of the guidelines framed in “The Andhra Pradesh Transfer of Rights to Certain Specified categories of Occupants of Unassigned Government Lands Policy, 2008”, the parties making applications have to necessarily accept the ownership of the Government and then claim regularization of their possession. Though the appellant-society and the respondents 1 to 4 have set up their claims, the very fact that they approached the Government for regularization of their possession indicates that they are accepting the Government as the owner and seeking regularization of their possession. There are two directions issued to the Government, one direction issued in W.P.No.3938 of 2009 filed by the society and another direction given in W.P.No.2034 of 2009 filed by Fareed Hussain Khan and three others. Both directions are now required to be reconciled. The way in which it can be done, in our considered view, is by giving opportunity to both parties, so as to establish their possession over the land. The Government has to consider the rival claims and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the guidelines issued in “The Andhra Pradesh Transfer of Rights to Certain Specified categories of Occupants of Unassigned Government Lands Policy, 2008”. 14. Accordingly, W.A.Nos.513, 514 of 2009 and 208 of 2010 and W.P.No.3445 of 2009 are disposed of directing the Government to consider the applications submitted under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008 on merits and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to all the parties to substantiate their possession over the land in dispute. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.11-04-2011 CS/RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Appeal Nos.513 and 514 of 2009, 208 of 2010 And Writ Petition No.3445 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Date: 11th April, 2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND