IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH (17th) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.2110 of 2008 Between: Smt. Falzma Bee (Died) per LR Syed Jaweed … Petitioner And: A.P. Housing Board, rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2110 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 05.08.2006 in CMA No.343 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 02.12.2004 in Proc.No.1643/93 passed by the Competent Authority (Tribunal), A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, directing eviction of the petitioner herein from the subject site of 120 sq. yards at Mangalhat and also to pay arrears of rent and damages in a sum of Rs.2,23,860/- up to December 2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in occupation of 120 sq. yards adjacent to the premises No.13-1-641/A/1 Manghalhat. She made a representation to the Vice Chairman, Housing Corporation claiming that previously her mother was in possession and after her mother’s death on 04.02.2005, she has been in possession of the site and thus the family of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the site since about 30 years and that they have been residing in a house constructed thereon. The petitioner sought allotment of site in her favour on payment of reasonable amount. The Housing Board passed provisional order of eviction on 27.11.2004 and also directed to pay arrears of rent or damages. As the petitioner failed to vacate, the Competent Authority issued impugned proceedings dated 02.12.2004 directing the Bailiff to evict the petitioner from the subject site and take possession of the housing board premises. Impugning the same, the petitioner filed CMA No.343 of 2004 and the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, dismissed the said appeal on 05.08.2006. 4. The claim of the petitioner for allotment on payment of market value was based on two grounds, namely, herself and her predecessors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the said site and used to reside thereon since about 30 years and that they also perfected their title by adverse possession. The learned Chief Judge, in the impugned order has noted that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim of adverse possession and therefore, the Competent Authority was justified in ignoring the said claim. It was further contended that before the learned Chief Judge by the petitioner that the impugned proceedings do not relate to the property under occupation of the petitioner, but on perusal of the record, the Appellate Authority found that eviction was relating to the property under occupation of the petitioner herein and therefore, there were no merits in the said contention. 5. The claim of the petitioner is that she has been in possession of the subject site since about 30 years and that she is entitled to seek allotment in her favour on payment of market value. Learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board submits that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.68 dated 15.05.1999 wherein pursuant to the policy of the Government in respect of 9 persons, who were in occupation of less than 100 sq. yards, the Government permitted the housing board to sell the said sites in favour of those persons at the rate stated therein and in respect of the remaining three persons, including the petitioner, the Government directed that the encroachers be got vacated and the open land be put to auction, since the extent is more than 100 sq. yards. 6. It is not disputed that even according to the petitioner, she was in possession of more than 100 sq. yards. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having regard to the small nature of the extent which is only 120 sq. yards, the petitioner may be given an opportunity once again to approach the concerned authority seeking regularization. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, insofar as the present revision is concerned, the impugned order of the learned Chief Judge, dismissing the appeal does not call for any interference, as the petitioner failed to establish her claim of adverse possession and the extent in her occupation being 120 sq. yards was not considered by the Government for regularization. It is however open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for allotment of the said extent in her favour on payment of market value within a period of two months and in the event of any such representation being made, the concerned authority may dispose of the same on its own merits, within a period of two months from the date of representation. The order of status-quo granted by this Court on 19.06.2008 in CMP No.2780 of 2008 shall remain in force for a period of four months from today or till such time the representation if any made by the petitioner is disposed of by the concerned authority, which ever is earlier. 8. In the result, subject to the above direction, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.06.2010 bss