THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos.1386 1477 of 2008 and 403 & 432 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION Nos.583, 961, 18158 and 20892 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Since in all these writ appeals and writ petitions a common question of law and facts have to be adjudicated, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. PROLOGUE: The dispute between the parties revolves around Acs.15.00 of land situated in Survey No.9/1, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, which is the subject matter covered by judgment dated 30.07.1992 passed by the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Court’) in L.G.C.Nos.1, 20 and 38 of 1988 and 39 and 102 of 1989. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 initially against five respondents including the Presidents of N.T.R Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society, Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Association, Saibabanagar Welfare Society, and thereafter included 28 others stating that as per the settlement record originally the total extent in Sy.No.9 was Acs.540.32 guntas and out of the said area, an extent of Acs.295.18 guntas has been set apart in favour of H.E.H., the Nizam by the Collector by order dated 20.02.1962. The balance of Acs.245.14 guntas formed as Kancha and entered as such in the revenue records. Out of the said land, after sub-division, the Government allotted some lands to various departments and some house sites to individuals in Survey No.9/1. P.V.Hanumantha Rao-fifth respondent and Syed Basheer Ahmed–sixth respondent claiming to be the inamdars in respect of an area of Acs.45.00 and Acs.15.00 respectively, secured initially occupancy patta from the authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘the 1955 Act’). The Government filed O.S.No.377 of 1984 against the said P.V.Hanumantha Rao, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, restraining him from alienating the land to third parties. Subsequently, the Government claimed the remaining Acs.15.00 of land also by way of amendment to the L.G.C by impleading Syed Basheer Ahmed-sixth respondent. In all, the Government claimed respondents 1 to 33 as land grabbers for Acs.60.00 of land. Respondents 6 to 19 were added as party respondents claiming to be successor in interest of the inamdar for the remaining portion of Acs.15.00 of land. In the said L.G.C., respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the President of N.T.R Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society, Saroornagar, and the President of Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Association, Saroornagar filed a common counter claiming title to the property and stating that the hut dwellers are in possession of the property over Acs.45.00 and Acs.15.00 respectively. Abdul Khader-third respondent filed a counter setting up title under an assignment order in favour of one Mir Rahim Ali, his maternal uncle, who obtained a patta from H.E.H., the Nizam (Sarfekhas authorities) in 1349-Fasli and has been in possession even before the assignment was made in his favour and continued to enjoy the same till the assignment of the extent of Acs.109.00 in Survey No.9 of Saroornagar Village. He claimed to be the power of attorney holder of Mir Rahim Ali. He also claimed that he has been in possession of the suit land and other extents of land and that he filed O.S.No.206 of 1987 against the fifth respondent-P.V.Hanumantha Rao, who filed L.G.C.No.20 of 1988 and others and obtained injunction. The fourth respondent-President, Saibabanagar Welfare Society filed counter with similar contentions. The fifth respondent-P.V.Hanumantha Rao claimed title from one Gulam Mohammed-inamdar. According to him, initially he obtained lease from the original inamdar- Gulam Mohammad in the year 1949 and again in the year 1968. He obtained sale deed from the inamdar for an extent of Acs.45.00 of land and the inamdar occupied Acs.15.00 of land in his possession in the said Survey Number. With similar allegations, he filed L.G.C.No.20 of 2008 against N.T.R Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society and five others. L.G.C.No.38 of 1988 was filed by the sixth respondent-Syed Basheer Ahmed in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 along with 14 others stating that they are owners of Acs.15.00 of land in Survey No.9/1 including one G.Sambasiva Rao, who said to be representing the Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Association. Abdul Khader and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal claimed that the land in question was grabbed by the Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Association. L.G.CNo.39 of 1989 was filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through its Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who filed O.S.No.737 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against N.T.R. Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society and P.V.Hanumantha Rao i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 5 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988, in respect of Acs.45.00 of land in Survey No.9/1 and on transfer the said suit was renumbered as L.G.C.No.39 of 1989. L.G.C.No.102 of 1989 was filed by Abdul Khader, who is the third respondent in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988, and 20 others against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and six others including the Government of Andhra Pradesh claiming that assignment was made in favour of Mir Rahim Ali over Acs.108.00 and they claim title by adverse possession. The Special Court by judgment dated 30.07.1992 allowed L.G.C.Nos.1 of 1988 and 39 of 1989 preferred by the State declaring the land to be Government land and dismissed L.G.C.Nos.20 and 38 of 1988 and 102 of 1989 holding that large number of hut-dwellers are in occupation of the suit land. The Government now claims to have taken possession of the land pursuant to the judgment in its favour in L.G.C.Nos.1 of 1988 and 39 of 1989, on 01.08.1992. The panchanama dated 01.08.1992 prepared for taking possession of the land clearly discloses that there were about 1123 hut-dwellings under encroachment, but they were not evicted, and that symbolic possession of the property was taken and the same was informed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District by letter dated 01.08.1992. Questioning the judgment dated 30.07.1992 passed by the Special Court in allowing L.G.C.Nos.1 of 1988 and 39 of 1989 and dismissing L.G.C.Nos.20 of 1988, P.V.Hanumantha Rao filed W.P.No.10074, 10075 and 10076 of 1992 respectively, whereas questioning the judgment in L.G.C.No.1 of 1998, Basheer Ahmed and others filed W.P.No.17015 of 1992. But they have not questioned the dismissal of L.G.C.No.38 of 1988. Abdul Khader filed W.P.Nos.10950, 10951,10952 and 10956 of 1992, whereas the State as well as the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District preferred Writ Appeal No.284 of 1992 against the judgment dated 31.12.1991 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2449 of 1988. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 18.09.1996, allowed W.P.Nos.10074, 10075, 10076 and 17015 of 1992 dismissing L.G.C.Nos.1 of 1988 and 39 of 1989 in so far as respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e., P.V.Hanumantha Rao and Syed Basheer Ahmed and respondent Nos.7 to 19 were concerned and allowing L.G.C.No.20 of 1988 and 38 of 1988. W.P.Nos.10950, 10951, 10952 and 10956 of 1992 and W.A.No.284 of 1992 were dismissed. The said judgment dated 18.09.1996 was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8601 to 8605 of 1997 by order dated 14.10.2003. Subsequent to the judgment dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Supreme Court in the above said Civil Appeals, the legal representatives of P.V.Hanumantha Rao-respondent No.5 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988, filed I.A.No.55 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and I.A.No.56 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.39 of 1989 under Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property i.e., Acs.45.00 in Survey No.9/1 situated at Saroornagar forthwith. Since N.T.R. Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society was in occupation of the application schedule property, the legal heirs representatives of P.V.Hanumantha Rao also filed I.A.No.156 of 2007 in I.A.No.55 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and I.A.No.157 of 2007 in I.A.No.56 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.39 of 1989 under order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C to implead the said society as party respondent in the said applications. The Special Court, by common order dated 03.09.2007, while recording the observation of the High Court for re-delivery of possession of the application schedule property by the Government, held that from the statement of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, it is clear that after disposal of L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and batch, the State obtained possession of the application schedule land and thereby the Government is the owner of the application schedule land; that in view of the judgment of the High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners i.e., legal representatives of P.V.Hanumantha Rao are entitled to restitution of possession from the Government; that it is no doubt true that from the material on record and the pleadings in the L.G.Cs. that N.T.R. Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society and its members along with several others were in possession of major extent of application schedule property even on the date of filing of the L.G.Cs.; that even though the Government has taken possession as asserted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, the proposed party- N.T.R. Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society and its members and others are continuing to be in possession of the application schedule property even then; that in the circumstances, a direction was issued to the Government to restore status quo anti regarding possession as existed on 01.08.1992, the date on which the Mandal Revenue Officer claimed to have taken possession by conducting panchanama and that the Mandal Revenue Officer has not stated that vacant possession of the property in question was taken by him on 01.08.1992 after evicting all the occupants including N.T.R. Nagar Slum Dwellers Uplifting Society and its members, and accordingly, allowed I.A.Nos.55 and 56 of 2007 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to take appropriate proceedings accordingly, within a period of two months from the date of the said order. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District was also directed to file compliance report as per Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. It appears i.e., Syed Basheer Ahmed and others i.e., the petitioners in W.P.No.17015 of 1992, which was allowed by the High Court, made representation to handover possession of Acs.15.00 of land, which is said to have been taken possession by the Mandal Revenue Officer. On such representation, the Mandal Revenue Officer directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to demarcate an extent of Acs.15.00 of land and deliver possession of the property. According to the Mandal Revenue Officer, when the Mandal Revenue Inspector Survey visited the land on 11.01.2008 for conducting panchanama and to deliver possession, they noticed some unauthorized compound walls, which were not there on the day of survey, and steps were taken to remove them and thereafter panchanama was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 12.01.2008 handing over possession of the land to an extent of Ac.15.00 to the applicant. W.P.No.583 of 2008 was filed by Vimalananda Cooperative Housing Society and 33 others to declare the action of the respondents therein in entering into the property owned by the said society and its members admeasuring an extent of Acs.8.00 in Survey No.9/1/F consisting of Plot Nos.1 to 97 ‘B’ Block and demolishing the compound walls and houses, as illegal and arbitrary; to direct the respondents to pay compensation for the demolition of the structures; and to restrain the official respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was stated that one Valluri Venkateswarlu purchased Acs.83.10 guntas in Survey No.9/1 and Acs.6.07 guntas in Survey No.10 of Saroornagar Village from H.E.H, the Nizam under registered sale deed dated 25.01.1963 after obtaining permission under Section 47 of the Hyderabad (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act, (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’). After partition of the land between Valluri Venkateswarlu and his brother-V.Subba Raju under registered partition deed in the year 1970, Valluri Venkateswarlu and his brother sold the land admeasuring about Acs.35.00 to the first petitioner society under registered sale deed in the years 1979 and 1980 in Survey No.9/1/F and Survey No.10. The first petitioner society has divided and demarcated the said land into residential plots after obtaining necessary sanction from the then Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar in the year 1980 and allotted/sold individual residential plots to its members by executing registered sale deeds. When the wife and son of Valluri Venkateswarlu filed L.G.C.No.49 of 2000 against the first petitioner society and 77 plot owners and members to declare them as land grabbers, the Special Court dismissed the same on 20.01.2005, against which W.P.No.21498 of 2005 was filed before this Court and the same is pending. While so, all of a sudden, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar along with his staff and a large police force started demolishing the houses and compound walls. Hence, the writ petition. This Court, while admitting the said writ petition, by order dated 18.01.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.655 of 2008, directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the land. Vysya Graduates Co-operative Housing Society Limited and its 27 members filed W.P.No.961 of 2008 against the very same respondents in W.P.No.583 of 2008 for the similar reliefs over an extent of Acs.5.05 guntas in Survey No.9/1/F of Saroornagar, consisting of Plot Nos.1 to 73, stating that Vysya Graduates Co- operative Housing Society Limited purchased Acs.5.05 guntas from Valluri Venkateswarlu and after obtaining necessary permission from the then Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar, they converted the said land into residential plots and allotted/sold the same to its members. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, on 18.01.2008, granted status quo in W.P.M.P.No.1145 of 2008. Syed Khader filed W.P.No.20892 of 2008 seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 therein in interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey No.9/1 situated in Saroornagar. It is stated that pursuant to the judgment dated 30.07.1992 passed in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988, the respondents have taken possession of the land in an extent of Acs.60.00 including Acs.15.00 from the petitioner and that on allowing W.P.No.17015 of 1992 by this Court by order dated 18.09.1996 setting aside the order of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and batch upholding the contention with regard to the petitioner’s ownership over an extent of Acs.15.00, he is in possession and enjoyment of the land. It is further stated that against the order dated 18.06.1996 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the State preferred Civil Appeal Nos.1601 to 8605 of 1997 and batch and the Supreme Court dismissed the same confirming the orders of the High Court. Thereafter, he made a representation before the respondents requesting them to re-deliver possession in his favour. The first respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by proceedings dated 22.05.2006 directed the third respondent-Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, to handover possession of the said land. Pursuant to the instructions of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent- directed the Mandal Surveyor to demarcate the land. After conducting the survey, the third respondent handed over possession of the land in favour of the petitioner on 12.01.2008. At the request of the petitioner, the third respondent through his proceedings dated 14.01.2008 requested the fourth respondent to give necessary police protection for fencing the land to avoid unauthorized entry. Meanwhile, W.P.Nos.583 and 961 of 2008 were filed, in which, status quo orders were passed. The petitioners in the said writ petitions are claiming possession over the land in Survey No.9/1/F of Saroornagar and that in the said writ petitions the third respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that Survey Nos.9/1/F and 10 are at a distant place from Survey No.9/1, in which possession was delivered to the petitioner herein. Hence, the writ petition. G.Ashok Reddy and two others filed W.P.No.18158 of 2009 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their construction of building in Plot Nos.57, 58 and 59 situated in Survey No.9/1/F of Saroornagar, which was undertaken as per sanctioned permit No.26/5 dated 03.04.2009, by setting aside the Caution Notice dated 06.07.2009. It is stated that Vimalananda Cooperative House Building Society was the owner and possessor of Plot Nos.57 to 59 situated in Survey No.9/1/F, Saroornagar, and it allotted Plot Nos.57 and 58 in favour of its member M.Ramadevi (vendor No.1 of the petitioners) and Plot No.59 in favour of K.Prabhavathi Devi (Vendor No.2 of the petitioners). Thereafter, the petitioners purchased Plot Nos.57, 58 and 59 in all admeasuring 809 square yards from the said allottees, and after obtaining necessary permission they started construction. It is stated that Caution Notice was issued pursuant to the interim order passed in W.P.No.27305 of 2008 (W.P.M.P.No.27305 of 2008 in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 was wrongly quoted as W.P.No.27305 of 2008, which pertains to the land acquisition matter of Prakasham District). This Court, on 28.08.2009, in W.P.M.P.No.23783 of 2009 in W.P.No.18158 of 2009 directed the respondents i.e., officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation not to interfere with the activity of the petitioners in constructing the building. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by common order dated 25.09.2008, in W.P.M.P.No.27305 of 2008 in W.P.No.20892 of 2008; W.P.M.P.No.655 of 2008 in W.P.No.583 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.1315 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.1145 of 2008 in W.P.No.961 of 2008, while observing that whether the land in an extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey No.9/1 handed over to the petitioner in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 through the Mandal Revenue Inspector/Mandal Surveyor, is an open land, or whether the plots in which houses were constructed and compound walls were raised, form part of the land in Survey No.9/1/F, which the petitioners in W.P.Nos.583 and 961 of 2008, are claiming as belonging to them, has to be decided on the basis of the sketches prepared at the time of handing over possession of the land to the petitioner in terms of the orders of the High Court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and if necessary, by obtaining a factual report by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, and hence, pending consideration of the said questions, and having regard to the stand taken by the respondents and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.583 and 961 of 2008, where they have obtained status quo orders, passed the following order: “As per the panchanama dated 12.01.2008 there is open land in an extent of Ac.8.00 covered by order of status quo, and it is the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.583 and 961 of 2008 that they are not claiming any land in Sy.No.9/1. Already, an extent of Ac.8.00 by panchanama dated 12.01.2008 was handed over to the petitioners herein. Hence, the said open area in an extent of Acs.8.00 is in the possession of the petitioners herein. The said possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed, and insofar as the remaining extent of land is concerned all the parties are directed to maintain status quo. List the matter after eight weeks. In the meanwhile the respondents may file their counters.” Aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.27305 of 2008 in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.655 of 2008 in W.P.No.583 of 2008, Vimalananda Cooperative Housing Society and its members filed Writ Appeal Nos.1386 and 1477 of 2008. Vysya Graduates Co-operative Housing Society Limited filed Writ Appeal No.432 of 2010 against order passed in W.P.M.P.No.27305 of 2008 in W.P.No.20892 of 2008, whereas G.Ashok Reddy and two others filed W.A.No.403 of 2010 against the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.23783 of 2009 in W.P.No.18158 of 2009. W.A.M.P.No.2082 of 2009 in W.A.M.P.SR.No.85796 of 2009 in W.A.No.1386 of 2008; W.A.M.P.No.2080 of 2009 in W.A.M.P.(SR) No.85802 of 2009 in W.A.No.1477 of 2008; W.P.M.P.No.39310 of 2010 in W.P.No.583 of 2008; W.P.M.P.No.39309 of 2010 in W.P.No.961 of 2008; W.P.M.P.No.39308 of 2010 in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 and W.A.M.P.No.2081 of 2009 and W.A.M.P.No.941 of 2010 in W.A.No.432 of 2010 were sought to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Hence, they are dismissed as withdrawn. W.A.M.P.No.944 of 2010 in W.A.No.1477 of 2010 and W.P.M.P.No.16616 of 2010 in W.P.No.583 of 2008 are allowed. SUBMISSIONS: Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for Vysya Graduate Co-operative Housing Society i.e., the first petitioner in W.P.No.961 of 2008 and first appellant in W.A.No.432 of 2010, and Sri G. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing Vimalananda Cooperative Housing Society i.e., the first petitioner in W.P.No.583 of 2008 and the first appellant in W.A.Nos.1386 and 1477 of 2008, contended that as per the orders in L.G.C., the property which is claimed to have been taken possession by the Mandal Revenue Officer under panchanama dated 01.08.1992 alone can be handed over possession, but not different property i.e., vacant land, which is in occupation of the petitioner-societies. Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned counsel further contended that Syed Rasheed Ahmed, on behalf of his family members including the petitioner in W.P.No.20892 of 2008, made a representation on 02.03.2006, which was forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister through the local M.L.A, admitting that the legal representatives of Sri P.V.Hanumantha Rao also made a representation for handing over possession of the land and the same is under consideration, and requested that without prejudice to their rights for possession of the land in Survey No.9/1 to the extent of Acs.15.00 guntas, to allot alternative land or similar extent in the nearby vicinity, in the event of impossibility of eviction of hut dwellers and other encroachers at the earliest to his family members. Further, it is submitted that in L.G.C.No.38 of 1988 filed by Syed Basheer Ahmed and others against Urban Huts and Slum Dwellers Association, Abdul Khader and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, the description of boundaries of the land in question were given and it was stated that respondents 1 to 3 therein have encroached upon the said land and erected structures; that the societies or its members were not made as parties to the said L.G.C and that in the panchanama dated 01.08.1992, it is nowhere stated that hut dwellers were evicted and vacant possession of the property was taken to handover the same to the applicants in L.G.C.No.38 of 1988. It is further submitted that the entire dispute hinges upon the identification of the land under the grab of re-delivery of the property and therefore, the different property, which is in occupation of the petitioner-societies, cannot be redelivered; that the two societies, namely, Vimalananda Cooperative Housing Society and Vysya Graduates Co-operative Housing Society Limited purchased the property in Survey No.9/1 from one Valluri Venkateswarlu, who obtained permission under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act, under registered sale deeds and after sub-division, made it as Survey No.9/1/F and that the letter dated 05.06.2003 addressed by the Collector, Ranga Reddy to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District also supports the case of the petitioners since in the said letter it is stated that Acs.60.00 is in possession of N.T.R Nagar, which is a party respondent to L.G.C.No.1 of 1988 and that the entire procedure for taking possession and delivery should be on declaring a person as land grabber under Rule 15 of the Rules and the same is in breach. Since the petitioners in W.P.Nos.583 and 961 of 2008 are not parties to L.G.C.No.38 of 1988, taking possession of the land from them and handing over the same to the petitioner in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 does not arise. The learned counsel has also taken us through the report of the Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, which was submitted pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.1386 and 1477 of 2008 and W.A(Sr).No.121840 of 2008, and submitted that the land in an extent of Acs.15.00 purported to have been re-delivered to the petitioner in W.P.No.20892 of 2008 under panchanama dated 12.01.2008 is not part of the land, which is subject matter of L.G.C.No.1 of 1988, and therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.20892 of 2008