IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1608 of 2008 Between: 1 Ram Agarwal, s/o Mohanlal, R/o Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 Rajiv Agarwal, S/o Ram Agarwal, R/o Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 Harshvardhan Agarwal, s/o Ram Agarwal, R/o Begumpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department represented by Collector, Hyderabad District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders, direction or directions declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 28-8-2006 seeking mutation in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) in respect of the Plot Nos.1-4-458, 1-4-459 and 1-4-444 in Sy.No.16, Bholakpur Village, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad through Memo dated 17-01-2008 as arbitrary, unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to cause the mutation in favour of the petitioners in the Town Survey Land Register in respect of the Plot Nos.1-4-458, 1-4-459 and 1-4-444 in Sy.No.16, Bholakpur Village, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the memo dated 17.1.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Secunderabad rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 28.8.2006 seeking mutation in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) in respect of plot Nos.1-4-458, 1-4-459 and 1-4-444 in Sy.No.16, Bholakpur Village, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioners that the property situated in Premises No.1-4-458, 1-4-459 and 1-4-444, Bholakpur Village, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad originally belonged to one G.A.Mohamadi. He had leased out the said property to M/s.Hyderabad Tin Products Private Limited in the early 1940s. Later he sold away the said land in six diﬀerent bits in favour of six persons under separate sale deeds dated 9.6.1964 and those six persons incorporated a company by name APICO Developers of which the 1st petitioner is one of the partners. From the company, he purchased an extent of 1026 square yards of land situated in plot Nos. 1-4-458, 1-4-459 and 1-4-444 in Sy.No.16, Bholakpur Village, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, by paying the monetary compensation to the other partners. Since the amounts were paid by the 1st petitioner from out of the HUF funds, the said property became the property of HUF of the 1st petitioner herein of which the other petitioners are the members. Subsequently, it is stated that petitioners 2 and 3 ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2006 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking partition of the said land. The said suit ended in compromise between the petitioners and accordingly a compromise memo was ﬁled in the Court and a decree was also passed on 15.6.2006 in terms thereof. Consequent to the said compromise, the 1st petitioner got 418 square yards and petitioners 2 and 3 got 276 and 332 square yards respectively. The said partition has also been reduced into writing vide the partition deed dated 26.6.2006 and the same was registered and their names were mutated in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on payment of the necessary fees. As the names of the original owner of the property from whom the company earlier purchased is being shown as the present enjoyer of the property, the petitioners are stated to have made an application before the 2nd respondent on 28.8.2006 seeking mutation of their names. Pursuant to the said application, a survey was conducted by the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, who submitted a report on 5.11.2006. Thereafter another inspection was conducted by the 3rd respondent on 27.10.2006, which clearly shows the possession of the petitioners. But however, the request of the petitioners to mutate their names in respect of the subject matter of land in the TSLR was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the documents produced by the petitioners are not tallying with the TSLR and that they do not establish the link with the entries and that the documents are unregistered documents. Hence this writ petition. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondents inter alia stating that there are three kinds of transfers that can be made in the TSLR with regard to the registered holdings. One such transfer is transfer of title by registered holders and B.S.O.No. 31(3) of the A.P.Board Standing Orders deals with such kind of transfers. It is stated that the petitioners have not produced any registered documents evidencing the transactions and even the genuineness of the adduced documents is doubtful. Further, there is no link between the transactions from the existing holders to the present petitioners. As such, the request of the petitioners to mutate their names in the TSLR could not be carried out. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the provisions of BSO No.31(7) read with 31(3) and contends that even in cases where there are no documents of title, if in the enquiry contemplated it is found that a party is in possession of the property for twelve years or more, necessary transfers in the TSLR can be made and in the instant case, the petitioners are having registered documents and, therefore, there cannot be any objection for mutating their names in the TSLR. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that the Board Standing Orders have no application to the facts of the instant case. He submits that as per Section 87 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, the District Collector alone is the competent authority to make entries in the TSLR records and, therefore, the petitioners have to make a proper application before the Collector seeking appropriate relief. For the sake of convenience, BSO 31(7) is reproduced hereunder. 7) Transfer in favour of persons proving possession of twelve years:- Where parties who have no documents of title are shown in a summary inquiry to have been in possession as reputed owners for twelve years or more, transfer of registry may be made after notice etc., as provided in paragraph 3. The action contemplated in this paragraph may be taken by the revenue oﬃcers either on their own motion or on the applications presented by the parties concerned. Payment of revenue as evidenced by the products of kist receipts or by the testimony of the village officers may be taken as proof of possession, but the absence of such proof should not be considered entirely to invalidate the claim and oral evidence of possession may be accepted.” A perusal of the above standing order indicates that even in the absence of any registered documents, if possession is established for more than 12 years, entries can be made in the TSLR. However, in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the District Collector alone is the competent authority to make necessary changes in the TSLR records, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction may be given to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer to transmit the ﬁle relating to the petitioners, without reference to the refusal orders passed by him, to the District Collector for fresh consideration of the request of the petitioners. In view of the above, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer is directed to remit the ﬁle relating to the petitioners to the District Collector, who shall consider the request of the petitioners after issuing notice to them to substantiate their case once again before him. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.7.8.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department represented by Collector, Hyderabad District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Kawadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Secunderabad. 4 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies