IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24248 of 1999 Between: 1 A. Satya Ramulu, s/o Late A. Advaiah, R/o H.No.1-62/1, to 5 , Kukkatpally, Hyderabad-71 2 A. raghupathi, S/o Late Avaiah, R/o H.No.1-62/1, to 5 , Kukkatpally, Hyderabad-71 3 A. Yadagairi S/o Late A. Avaiah, R/o H.No.1-62/1, to 5 , Kukkatpally, Hyderabad-71 4 A. Shanker, S/o Late A. Avaiah, R/o H.No.1-62/1, to 5 , Kukkatpally, Hyderabad-71 5 a. Balaanarasimha, S/o Late A. Avaiah, R/o H.No.1-62/1, to 5 , Kukkatpally, Hyderabad-71 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, O/o Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, R.R.Dist. 2 The Dy. Superintendent of Police, O/o Balanagar, Hyderabad, R.R.Dist. 3 The Inspector of Ploice (Traffic) Kukatpally P.S., Kukatpally, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad. 4 The Sub- Inspector of Ploice Kukatpally P.S., Kukatpally, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad. 5 Bheemani Anjaiah, S/o Late B. Shivaiah, R/o 1-41, Kukatpally, balanagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 6 Bheemani Ramachander, S/o Late B. Shivaiah, R/o 1-42, Kukatpally, balanagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 7 Bheemani Lakshminarayana, S/o Late B. Shivaiah, R/o 1-45, Kukatpally, balanagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 8 Bheemani Yellaiah, S/o Late B. Shivaiah, R/o 1-46, Kukatpally, balanagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 9 Bheemani Krishna, S/o Late B. Shivaiah, R/o 1-45, Kukatpally, balanagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 10 Smt. P. Kamalamma, W/o P. Aanjaiah, R/o 8-3-376/1, Shastrinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus commondaing the respondent 1 to 4 to restore the 1685 Sq.Yards of land in permises No.1-61.1-62/1 to 5, Kukatpally Hyderabad R.R.Dist from where the petitioners have been dispossed demolishing the petitioner houses/Rooms by force and to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of compensation towards the property of them destroyed by respondent 1to 4 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAGHAVAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24248 of 1999 ORDER: Petitioners seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to restore their land admeasuring 1685 sq. yards in premises Nos.1-61 and 1-62/1 to 5 situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioners that their father namely A.Advaiah purchased agricultural land admeasuring one acre in the name of his sister’s husband namely one Bheemani Shivaiah through registered Sale Deed document No.1491 of 1355 Fasli (1945 A.D). It is stated that the petitioner’s father was the real owner of the said land, but his sister’s husband Bheemani Shivaiah managed to get the sale deed in his name. Thereafter, there was a settlement between the father of the petitioners and the said Bheemani Shivaiah and, accordingly, compromise settlement deed, dated 20-03-1966, was executed in the presence of the village elders. As per the compromise settlement deed, the said one acre of property was divided into two equal shares between Bheemani Shivaiah and A.Advaiah. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners and the father of unofficial respondents are the joint owners of the said property and both of them divided the same into two equal shares as per compromise settlement deed, dated 20-03-1966. While so, in the year 1978-79, some BJP people came and asked to give some land facing the road towards South, but they refused to give the land. Thereafter, they instigated the police at P.S. Kukatpally falsely claiming that the said land is a Government land without there being any justiﬁcation whatsoever. Incidentally, the sons of Bheemani Shivaiah also joined hands with BJP people and they also instigated the police in this regard. At the instance of BJP people, the local police made an attempt to dispossess the petitioners, though the petitioners and unofficial respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective properties as per compromise settlement deed, dated 20- 03-1966. It is further stated that in the year 1994-95, unoﬃcial respondents 5 to 10 attempted to grab their land. Ultimately, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally, and the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally, on 05-11-1999 along with their staﬀ and police personnel proceeded to the land in question and cut oﬀ all the plants, removed fencing belonging to the petitioners and others, and on 06-11-1999, they engaged a bull-dozer and demolished the structures forcibly by evicting the tenants of the petitioners. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that oﬃcial respondents 1 to 4 illegally trespassed into the said land and dispossessed the petitioners by demolishing the structures existing on the land in question. It is further stated that the petitioners were also beaten by the oﬃcial respondents, as if they got the licence to do so. It is further stated that the police acted as monarchs, without following due process of law, and taken the law into their hands and illegally dispossessed the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to restore possession in their favour, which was taken in the month of November, 1999. A counter has been ﬁled by unoﬃcial respondents 5 to 10 denying the right and title of the petitioners, but accepted the allegations made against oﬃcial respondents. It is stated that there is a rival claim between the petitioners and the unoﬃcial respondents and the unoﬃcial respondents ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.592 of 1995 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District, and the same is pending. The unoﬃcial respondents also stated that they have ﬁled declarations before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and the Urban Land Ceiling Authority determined the holding of the unofficial respondents. A perusal of the said declarations and the orders passed by the Special Oﬃcer Competent Authority goes to show that they do not relate to the property in question, but they relate to some other property. Oﬃcial respondents ﬁled a counter stating that there was a police chowki in Buruzu area of Kukatpally and also small ‘Musaﬁr-Khana’ nearby the said area, which was being used by the police, and later the same was demolished. Thereafter, in the year 1958, a full-ﬂedged police station was intended to be constructed at Kukatpally, on public request, and to facilitate the same, the then village Sarpanch of Kukatpally one Mr.Nayaneni Narayana Rao handed over 400 sq. yards of land, vide document, dated 05-05-1958 for construction of the police station. As the said 400 sq. yards, which was given by the then Village Sarpanch of Kukatpally, vide his document, dated 05-05-1958, was not suﬃcient, the same Sarpanch handed over another 17 guntas of the land vide another document, dated 09-06-1959 to the police authorities for construction of a police station as it was village goutan land and it was already under the use of police department. But, due to paucity of funds, the construction of the police station could not be taken up. However, the police Chowki (naka) was withdrawn from the said Kukatpally Buruzu land and the police station started functioning from Balanagar where a permanent building was also subsequently constructed for police station. Thereafter, in the year 1981, as the land was kept vacant and the same is situated near to the houses of the petitioners, the petitioners and their father attempted to illegally erect some huts in the said land and tried to unauthorisedly occupy the same. When the same was noticed by the police, the then S.H.O., Balanagar P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 81 against A.Advaiah, the father of the petitioners, and seven others. However, A.Advaiah, who was a Mason by profession, started utilizing the partly dilapidated structures, which were already existing, for housing his labour, promising to vacate them as and when the same is needed by the police. It is further stated that the father of the petitioners namely A.Advaiah continued to keep his construction labour on the said land i.e. dilapidated structures. It is stated that the father of the petitioners instead of vacating the said land, made various constructions and let out the same for hire and started collecting rents from the tenants. It is stated that the said Advaiah and his family members, the petitioners herein, were staying in their houses situated in the adjacent locality and the suit said to have been ﬁled by the unoﬃcial respondents has no relevancy to the right and title of the petitioners herein. However, it is admitted that on 05-11-1999 police department have taken the possession of the land. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioners that on 05-11-1999 police removed fencing, cut oﬀ the plants from the open land belonging to the petitioners, the same are denied. The further allegation that the police evicted the tenants and demolished the structures also had been denied. The allegation that the police have trespassed into the land and demolished the structures is also denied. The allegations with regard to lathi charge and beating the family members are also denied. It is further stated that the petitioners and their tenants vacated the land and the police occupied the said land on 05-11- 1999. The permissive possession of the father of the petitioners and tenants and the title of the petitioners have been denied. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation for the alleged demolition of the structures. I have heard the rival contentions in detail. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the oﬃcial respondents have any semblance of right, title or authority to occupy the land in question by dispossessing the so- called tenants of the father of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioners is paying house tax to the then Gram Panchayat, as is evident from the Miscellaneous Receipt No.05781, dated 07-03-1977 for the house Nos.1-61 to 1-64 amounting to Rs.116-60 ps. for the year 1976-77. It is stated that the 1st petitioner obtained permission for construction of the building from the then Gram Panchayat, vide proceedings GPK/107/81, GPK/108/81 and GPK/109/81, dated 20-12-1980, and as per the approved plan of the then Gram Panchayat, constructions were made. The petitioners ﬁled copy of the judgment in O.S.No.592 of 95, dated 15-06-2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that the said suit was filed by the unofficial respondents 5 to 10 against all the petitioners herein and their father. The said suit was ﬁled for recovery of vacant possession of plaint A schedule property in respect of the land admeasuring 200 sq. yards alone from the possession of the petitioners herein. It is the case of unoﬃcial respondents in the said suit that they are the owners of the house bearing Nos.1-26, 1-26/2, 1- 26/3, 1-27/4, 1-27/3, 1-27/5A, 1-64/2, and the trial court considered the documents ﬁled by unoﬃcial respondents herein with regard to the construction of the houses made by them as well as the documents ﬁled by the petitioners herein with regard to the construction of the houses made by the petitioners herein. The unoﬃcial respondents ﬁled Exs.A-1 to A-13. Ex.A-1 is the CC of registered Urdu Sale Deed; Ex.A-2 is the sanction plan; Ex.A-3 is the proceeding issued by the ULC Authority; Exs.A-4 to A-12 are the tax receipts and Ex.A-13 is three photographs with negatives. The petitioners herein ﬁled documents Exs.B-1 to B- 25. Ex.B-1 is the unregistered settlement deed in Telugu; Ex.B-2 is the house tax receipt; Ex.B-3 is the plan; Ex.B-4 is the CC of the Sale Deed; Ex.B-5 is the registered legal notice; Ex.B-6 is the notice by PS.Balanagar; Ex.B-7 is the postal acknowledgment; Ex.B-8 is the Tax receipt; Ex.B-9 is the permission proceedings; Ex.B-10 is the approved plan; Ex.B-11 is the tax receipt; Ex.B-12 is the permission proceedings; Ex.B-13 is the approved plan; Ex.B-14 is the tax receipt; Ex.B-15 is the permission proceedings; Ex.B-16 is the sanctioned plan and Exs.B-17 to B-25 are the pahanies. Therefore, it is stated that the father of the petitioners was shown as possessor of 2 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.1086 and the Gram Kantam land of Ac.1-12 gts., was shown in Sy.No.1927/E. Accordingly, it was held that the father of the petitioners was in possession of the aforesaid property since long time and the unoﬃcial respondents did not give their survey numbers for the suit property and the area of the suit property and, therefore, it was held that the unoﬃcial respondents herein are not entitled for any injunction. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the right, title and extent of the area in occupation of the respective parties and if there is any dispute, it is for them to resolve elsewhere, but not in this writ petition. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the oﬃcial respondents have any right, title or claim over the property in question and whether their action in taking possession on 05-11-1999 is in accordance with law. Admittedly, police have not placed any scrap of paper claiming their right and title and they are only relying on two letters said to have been given by the then Sarpanch of Kukatpally, dated 05.05.1958 and 09-06-1959. Even, Grama Kantam land cannot be given by the Sarpanch of a village to the police, unless a resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayat granting permission for transfer of the Government land or Gram Kantam land either in favour of any organization or department, the question of handing over possession by a Sarpanch to the police department does not arise. However, copies of the alleged documents, dated 05-05-1958 and 09-06-1959, have not been filed. The Sarpanch cannot handover the property of somebody else to the police department. Even, according to the counter ﬁled by oﬃcial respondents 1 to 4, they have admitted that police have taken possession of the land in question on 05-11- 1999, but however, it is stated that the tenants of the petitioner’s father voluntarily vacated and handover possession. When serious allegations have been made against the oﬃcial respondents stating that they have high handedly entered into the land in question and took possession of the same by demolishing the structures therein, it cannot be said that the father of the petitioners and the petitioners voluntarily handed over possession of the same in favour of the police. The oﬃcial respondents have not ﬁled any documents to show that it is a Government land or the Grama Kantam land and moreover, they have not even ﬁled any material showing their right, title and possession in their favour. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the property belongs to the father of the petitioners as well as the father of unoﬃcial respondents. The unoﬃcial respondents ﬁled declarations under the Urban Land Ceiling Authority for the various properties, which are said to have been finalized. The petitioners and the unoﬃcial respondents are in possession of certain properties. It appears that there is still dispute with regard to certain properties. Insofar as the property in question is concerned, admittedly, the possession has been taken by the oﬃcial respondents from the tenants of the father of the petitioners and the petitioners. As already stated, there is no legal order by any competent authority entrusting the said property for construction of the police station. It is not the property of the Sarpanch to give the land in question to the police station vide documents dated 05.05.1958 and 09.06.1959. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the action of the police authorities in forcibly evicting the tenants and occupying the same is illegal and unsustainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed directing respondents 1 to 4 to restore possession, which was taken over from the petitioners and the tenants of the petitioner’s father, by maintaining status- quo obtaining as on 05-11-1999, i.e., prior to the date on which the possession was taken by the oﬃcial respondents . It is also made clear that with regard to internal dispute of the petitioners and the unoﬃcial respondents, it is for them to resolve the dispute in a Civil Court. It is also made clear that insofar as 200 sq. yards, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.592 of 1995, the appeal A.S.No.81 of 2005 is pending on the ﬁle of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. If that be so, it is open for the unoﬃcial respondents to establish their right and title in respect of 200 sq. yards in the pending A.S. Further, it is made clear that the rival claims of the parties have to be decided without inﬂuenced by any of the observations made in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 12-08-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJS}