IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25832 of 2001 Between: S.Rukaman Naik ……PETITIONER(S) a n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Assgn III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WPMP No.2711 of 2002 in WRIT PETITION No.25832 of 2001 and WRIT PETITION No.25832 of 2001 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the Memo No.I2/4276/2001 dated 03.08.2001 of the second respondent i.e. District Collector, Hyderabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for certain extent of land on the ground that the land in question is Government land should be quashed as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the order dated 30.04.1997 passed in W.P.No.2963 of 1992 and the order dated 28.02.2001 passed in L.G.C.No.187/1997 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The other consequential relief sought for by the petitioner is that a direction should be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to enjoy his land in question peacefully. 2. To decide the point the pleadings of the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5th respondent and also the case of the petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.2711 of 2002 (an implead party to petition) have to be examined in detail. The land in dispute is an extent of 729 Sq. yards in Sy.No.102/3, Road No.12, Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, Banjara Hills, Hakimpet village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, and hereafter it shall be referred to as ‘disputed land’. According to the petitioner, he became owner of this disputed land under a registered gift deed dated 07.12.1979 executed in his favour by the G.P.A. holder of one Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and has been in possession of the same ever since then as its rightful owner. The further version of the petitioner is that he wanted to construct a compound wall and two rooms in the disputed land and for that purpose made an application to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for permission. But the said Corporation directed him to obtain NOC from the second respondent. The petitioner says that accordingly he submitted an application dated 27.06.2001 to the second respondent for NOC. But the second respondent rejected the said application by his impugned Memo dated 03.08.2001 on the ground that the disputed land which is in Sy.No.102/3 of Hakimpet village is in Government land. Questioning the said memo, petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the disputed land is not Government land but it is his own land and he got it under the abovementioned registered gift deed dated 07.12.1979. Explaining his title to the said land, the petitioner says that way back in late 1950s the Government of Andhra Pradesh assigned an extent of Acs.28-29 guntas in Sy.No.102 of Hakimpet village, Shaikpet Mandal, to his donor Syed Ahmed Nuruddin on payment of 16 times of the market value under the Laoni Rules of 1950 framed under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1353 fasli. His version is that subsequently the above Sy.No.102 was sub-divided into Sy.No.102/2 consisting of Acs.14- 18 gts and Sy.No.102/3 consisting of the other Acs.14-18 guntas and the said land was also mutated in the name of his donor in the revenue records. The petitioner’s further version is that his donor from then onwards continued to be in possession of the above Acs.28-29 guntas and in course of time he converted the above land into plots and sold some of them to others and also gifted some other plots to some of the individuals and that is how he got the disputed land/plot under the abovementioned gift deed dated 07.12.1979. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1965 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.804 (Rev) dated 03.06.1965 cancelling the above assignment of Acs.28-29 guntas in favour of his donor Syed Ahmed Nuruddin on the ground that the assignment was illegal and thereafter his donor filed W.P.No.1520 of 1970 questioning cancellation of the said assignment and that Writ Petition was allowed on 14.03.1969 on the ground that the cancellation was violative of principles of natural justice and fair procedure and quashed the cancellation order. It is seen from the affidavit of the petitioner that the Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e. the first respondent again issued G.O.Ms.No.2166 (Rev) Department dated 23.10.1976 cancelling the assignment after giving notice to his donor on the ground that the assignment was contrary to Circular No.14 of 1954. The petitioner says that his donor again filed W.P.No.3626 of 1976 questioning the said cancellation and that Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 21.12.1977 by observing that it was open to the authorities to proceed in the matter after giving an opportunity once again. At this stage, the petitioner has stated that the Government has issued a Memo No.3790/V(1)76-17 dated 07.07.1979 to the District Collector, Hyderabad, to implement the High Court’s order. The petitioner then says that in the year 1979 the purchasers of the various plots and the donees of some plots from his donor formed a society by name Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society for enjoyment of their plots and to take up construction work. 5. The affidavit of the petitioner then discloses that some other writ petitions were filed by his donor following another order of the Joint Collector dated 02.11.1982 cancelling the assignment subsequently in favour of his donor and his donor’s claim was upheld in those writ petitions. The said details are not necessary. The petitioner then says that the Government through its Memo No.4024/ASSN/III(2)/82-84 dated 11.09.1990 ordered for mutation of the land in favour of Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society of which he is a member. His further version is then the Government of Andhra Pradesh again issued a memo No.101204/ASS/32/ 90-2 dated 14.02.1992 keeping the above memo granted in favour of the Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society under abeyance at the instance of some powerful politicians. The petitioner’s further version is that Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society then filed W.P.No.2963 of 1992 against Government and Sri Venkateswara Co-operative Housing Society in this Court and the said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 30.04.1997 holding the above memo to be illegal. The order of this Court in the said Writ Petition shows that the Venkateswara Co-operative Housing Society also purchased some land in the same survey numbers which is around the Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society’s land and the said Yamuna Nagar Society claimed that some portion of the land belonging to it was wrongly shown by the surveyors as if it is in possession of the said Venkateswara Co-operative Society. After quashing the above Government memo which was against the Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Society it was observed in the above Writ Petition that it was open for the parties to establish their claims in appropriate proceedings. This aspect shows there was a dispute regarding identity of the lands in the possession of both the societies and this assumes importance in this case as will be presently seen from the counter of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also the case of the implead party petitioner. 6. It is the version of the petitioner that after the disposal of the above Writ Petition, the Government also filed Land Grabbing Case No.187/1997 in the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against his donor and his G.P.A. holder and also Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and some others for their eviction from the land in Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 mentioned supra. A copy of the order dated 28.02.2001 passed in the Land Grabbing Case and filed by the petitioner shows that the Special Court refused to entertain it on the ground that the respondents in the said case cannot be treated as land grabbers in view of the original assignment order made in favour of the donor of the petitioner and the orders passed in various writ petitions mentioned by the petitioner. It would however be sufficient to note that the Special Court observed that the parties can agitate their title and establish the same in appropriate proceedings as are permitted under law and this is the last sentence in the said order of the Special Court. 7. Based on the abovementioned assignment order in favour of his donor and the writ petitions and also the order passed in the Land Grabbing Case, the plea of the petitioner is that his title to the disputed land which is part of the land assigned to his donor Syed Ahmed Nuruddin cannot be questioned by respondents and, therefore, the impugned memo of the second respondent wherein he observed that the disputed land is the Government land cannot be allowed to stand and should be quashed. 8. One L.Bikshapathy, the then Assistant City Planner, Circle No.5 of the fifth respondent-Municipal Corporation filed counter affidavit on its behalf opposing this writ petition. Its stand is that the petitioner never made any application for permission to make construction in the disputed land and it never asked him to get NOC from the Collector and urged that the petitioner should be put to strict proof of his case on this aspect. He then stated that that the disputed land or plot claimed by the petitioner as his land is part of sanctioned layout of Venkateshwara Co-operative Housing Society and it bears Plot Nos.308 and 309 vide permit No.140/1992 dated 19.02.1988. With the above pleas, it prayed for dismissal of the writ petition against it. 9. Then one Sri P.Raja Ram, the then Special Deputy Collector (Land Protection) in the office of the Collector, Hyderabad District, filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The fourth respondent is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal and he is also a revenue authority and though he did not file counter it has no effect on the controversy as respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed counter. In the said counter, mention is about the assignment pleaded by the petitioner in favour of Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and also the steps taken by the Government/ revenue authorities for cancellation of the same and the various writ petitions filed questioning the steps taken by the Government for cancellation of the said assignment. He then pleaded that Sy.No.102 of Hakeempet village consists of Ac.323.29 guntas which is Government land. As already mentioned supra, the counter contains a mention about the alleged illegal assignment made in favour of Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and the steps taken by the Government to cancel the said assignment. It is then stated that in the year 1982 and 1991 the Government allotted an extent of Acs.104.00 to M/s. Venkateswara Co-operative Housing Society through G.O.Ms.No.176 Revenue(Q) Department dated 09.02.1982 i.e. for Acs.100.00 and through G.O.Ms.No.1013 Revenue (Assignment.III) Department dated 08.11.1991 i.e. for Acs.4-00. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 then stated that the disputed land of the petitioner falls in the land allotted to M/s.Venkateswara Cooperative Housing Society and it then mentioned about some writ petitions filed by the members of the said M/s.Venkateshwara Cooperative Housing Society and also the L.G.C.No.187/1997 filed by the Government against Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and others and also a Writ Petition No.25763/2001 filed by the Government against the said order in the L.G.C. but the result of this Writ Petition is not mentioned. It is then stated in their counter that the writ petitioner filed an application before the fifth respondent District Collector for NOC and the fifth respondent rejected the same on the ground that the disputed land falls in the Government land. The tenor of the counter of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 is that there is a dispute with regard to identity of the land as to whether the disputed land was part of the land earlier assigned to the donor of the petitioner which is allegedly illegal or the land allotted to M/s.Venkateshwara Cooperative Housing Society or the Government land and that therefore this dispute cannot be decided in this writ petition and accordingly this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 10. The sixth respondent in the Writ Petition is the Station House Officer of Banjara Hills Police Station and it pertains to some interim directions granted earlier regarding the construction of compound wall by the petitioner which is again made subject to the result of the Writ Petition and therefore it is not necessary to go into the same. 11. It should now be mentioned that in the meanwhile one R.Venkata Rami Reddy filed W.P.M.P.No.2711 of 2002 for impleading him as the 7th respondent in this writ petition. His plea is that he purchased plot No.309-A admeasuring 600 sq. yards situated in the land allotted to Sri Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society and the writ petitioner filed the application for NOC before the District Collector (R-5) and this writ petition is filed only to grab his land in the name of setting up claim to the disputed land. This implead petitioner says that he purchased the above extent of 600 sq. yards from one Gotte Bhoopathi who was the original allottee under the Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society. He thus says that there is a dispute regarding identity of the land claimed by the writ petitioner and his own land and consequently this writ petition is not maintainable. His WPMP is still pending. His counsel was absent on the date of hearing of the Writ Petition and this WPMP. However, having regard to the averments made in the counter of respondent Nos.1 to 3, this WPMP is ordered. 12. The point has to be taken up now on the above pleadings and the arguments based thereon. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the order dated 30.04.1997 passed in W.P.No.2963 of 1992 and the order dated 28.02.2001 passed in L.G.C.No.187/1997 by the Special Court and contended that the said two orders can be treated as sufficient to establish the title of the petitioner’s donor for Acs.28-29 guntas in Sy.Nos.102/1 and 102/2 of Hakimpet village based on the assignment made in favour of the petitioner’s donor. Her further contention is that since the petitioner’s land is part of that land his title should also be upheld and the memo issued by the 3rd respondent holding that the petitioner’s land falls in Government land and the refusal of NOC on that ground should be quashed. It is difficult to accept the above contention. 14. It may be noted that even according to the petitioner in W.P.No.2963 of 1992 this Court left the issue of establishment of the respective claims of the parties in the said writ petition in appropriate proceedings and this is stated in so many words in the last portion of para-6 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself in support of this writ petition. This is also borne out by the observations made by this Court to the above effect at page-46 of a copy of the judgment dated 30.04.1997 passed in W.P.No.2963 of 1992 and filed by the petitioner himself in the material papers along with this writ petition. It should also be noted that the above observations have been made on the ground that the matter involves disputed questions of title which cannot be gone into in a writ petition by this Court and that therefore they should be decided in appropriate proceedings which mean only by way of a civil Suit before a competent civil Court. It should be noted that the said W.P.No.2963 of 1992 was brought by Yamuna Nagar Co- operative House Building Society and Yamuna Nagar Plot Owners Association and the second respondent therein is Sri Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society. The stand of the second respondent in the said writ petition which is mentioned in the writ petition order shows that it was claiming a part of the land which was claimed by the Yamuna Nagar Co-operative House Building Society of which the present petitioner is said to be a member on the ground that it was allottee of that land from the Government. The whole order in the writ petition in substance reads that though the assignment in favour of Syed Ahmed Nuruddin i.e. the petitioner’s donor cannot be cancelled yet the dispute between the Yamuna Nagar Society and Sri Venkateswara Society has to be resolved in appropriate proceedings which mean only a proceedings before a competent civil Court regarding identity of the lands. 15. It may also be noted that in the counter of respondents 1 to 3 it is stated that there is altogether an extent of Acs.323-29 guntas of Government land in Sy.No.102 and out of that the Government says Acs.104-00 was allotted to Sri Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society. The petitioner’s case is that only Acs.28- 29 guntas was assigned to his donor in the said extent. The remaining land is said to be Government land. It appears that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the said portions of land in Acs.323-29 guntas of Government land. Added to this, the implead party petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.2711 of 2002 says that he purchased 600 Sq. Yards of land from an allottee of M/s.Venkateswara House Building Society and the petitioner is claiming that land in the name of filing this writ petition. Thus, though the assignment in favour of petitioner’s donor may not be in dispute even as stated by the petitioner, still there is a dispute regarding the identity of lands allotted to both the societies and the land still remaining with Government. This Court considered all these aspects and observed that the parties should work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings. Thus, the order in W.P.No.2963 of 1992 cannot advance the case of the petitioner for getting NOC from the District Collector even assuming for a moment that it is necessary for obtaining building permission from the fifth respondent Municipal Corporation. 16. Then coming to the order passed in L.G.C. No.187/1997 it cannot also advance the case of the petitioner. It is true that the said L.G.C. was brought by the first respondent against Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and twenty four others in respect of Acs.28-27 guntas alleged to have been grabbed by the respondents. In the said L.G.C. the second respondent is the G.P.A. holder of Syed Ahmed Nuruddin (Petitioner’s donor) and the third respondent is Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society. Answering the additional issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court to decide that issue, the Special Court held that in view of the various orders passed in the earlier writ petitions setting aside the orders cancelling the assignment made in favour of Syed Ahmed Nuruddin, the said Nuruddin and those claiming under him cannot be said to be land grabbers and therefore the L.G.C. is not maintainable. In the last paragraph of the order in the copy of the judgment in the said L.G.C. case filed by the petitioner it is observed that the State is at liberty to pursue its claim in appropriate proceedings. It is true that this order may be helpful for the petitioner to show that he is not a land grabber of the disputed plot but nothing is pronounced in the said L.G.C. or the other writ petitions mentioned by him about the exact identity of the land which is now in dispute between Yamuna Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and Sri Venkateswara House Building Society and also the remaining land with the Government. 17. As already mentioned supra, the implead party petitioner in WPMP No.2711 of 2002 is claiming a part of the disputed land as his own land on the ground that it was allotted to Venkateswara Housing Society. Thus, there is a dispute regarding the identity of the land claimed by the petitioner and its location i.e. whether it falls in the land allotted to Sri Venkateswara Society or the land which remains and which belongs to Government in Sy.No.102. In these circumstances, it is not open for this Court to go into this question and quash the memo of the third respondent. It should also be noted that the fifth respondent in its counter has stated that the petitioner did not apply for any permission for construction by paying the necessary fee and submitting the plan and it never instructed him to get the NOC from the fifth respondent. The petitioner did not file a copy of his application for permission given to the fifth respondent for construction and the challan showing payment of permission fee. Thus, the petitioner’s case in this behalf remains in dispute. It is not known why the petitioner had to approach the fifth respondent for NOC. 18. Thus, all the above circumstances and the facts in dispute show that this Court should not interfere in the matter and quash the third respondent’s memo. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is always open for the petitioner to establish the identity of his land and his title to it in a competent civil Court and then pursue his other remedies for construction activity on it. No costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 9th December 2010 CVRK