IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.6373 of 2002 Between: PABC Private Limited, Rep.by its President-Sri K.Prasada Rao, S/o. Pullaiah, 72 years, R/o.ABM Compound Kavali, Nellore District. (Cause title amended as per Court order, dt.18-12-2009 in WPMP No.33440 of 2009). … Petitioner And The Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Sreenivasa Rao for Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 None appeared for respondent No.4 This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6373 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 01.04.2002 passed by respondent No.3, whereby he directed respondent No.4 to remit rents in respect of the property in question to his Office. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of property admeasuring 7792 square yards of land in Survey No.51 situated at Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. The petitioner traced its right to the said property under an amalgamation order dated 03.05.1974 passed by the High Court of Madras in C.P.Nos.109 and 110 of 1973. The building bearing No.9-1-169A, which was situated in the said property, was leased out by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 on 01.04.1976. The lease was renewed from time to time and is presently in force. According to the petitioner, the predecessors in title of the property purchased the same more than 115 years back under registered sale deeds. Under the impugned proceedings, respondent No.3 claimed that the land in question belongs to the Government, and accordingly directed respondent No.4 to pay rent to him. The basis on which such a claim appeared to have been made was that entries in the Town Survey Land Register (‘TSLR’, for brevity) had shown the Government as the owner of the property. This action of respondent No.3 is called in question in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, stated that respondent No.4 occupied the portion of the premises falling in T.S.No.1, Block-E, Ward No.115, Bholakpur Village, which is recorded as Government land. That before initiating proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, summons were issued to respondent No.4 to the above mentioned effect. The impugned action was sought to be justified by the respondents on the ground that in the survey conducted in the year 1965 the land in question was notified in the District Gazette No.38, dated 29.06.1976, as “G” which means Government. It is not the case of the respondents that the building, which was leased out to respondent No.4, was constructed by the Government or any of the respondents. The claim of the petitioner that the title to the property devolved upon it through an order of Madras High Court in a company petition is not disputed, nor the genesis of title given by the petitioner in its affidavit is also controverted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, an entry in the TSLR is not a conclusive proof of title (Hyderabad Potteries vs. District Collector[1]). Even assuming that the respondents are serious in pursuing their title over the property, they are not entitled to make any unilateral declaration that they are the owners of the property, and in this regard, they stand like any other individual who raises a dispute over title before appropriate Court of law. Unless the respondents get their title declared by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent Court or Tribunal, and succeed in such proceedings, the law does not permit them to interfere with the right of the petitioner to collect the rents from its tenant. The respondents failed to draw support from any statutory provision, which empowers them to resort to the impugned action. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s right to receive rent from respondent No.4 or any other tenant in future. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are, however, entitled to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before competent forum in respect of the subject property. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7985 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2009 vs [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600