þÿ​[1][1]ÕÍÕœ.“—​+,ù®0ì hp€​ˆ​˜ ¨​°¸ À Í[1]ä ‑aphcitl Ã . ¦p ‑ [1]‑​Title [1] ​ ​‑​ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLþÿÿÿNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghiþÿÿÿklmnopqþÿÿÿstuvwxyþÿÿÿýÿÿÿ|þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ​ [1]ÀFð»W;1<Ê~€1Table [1]ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿMê8WordDocument[1]ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"˜SummaryInformation([1][1] ÿÿÿÿjDocumentSummaryInformation8[1]ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿrCompObj​[1]​ÿÿÿÿjObjectPoolÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿð»W;1<Êð»W;1<Êÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ​ [1]ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô9²qINDX( MRN[1](¸ è[1]0Ê8​olpZ¨​pl qå‹#=Ê»​9Ò<Êú— (Å=Êú— (Å=Ê€x [1]WP_229~1.DOC9​ xd¨​plà~è‹#=Ê»​9Ò<Ê​¿ (Å=Ê​¿ (Å=Ê`V ​wp_23733_2001.doc9​ pZ¨​plà~è‹#=Ê»​9Ò<Ê​¿ (Å=Ê​¿ (Å=Ê`V [1]WP_237~1.DOC:​ xd¨​pl€ê‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Êæ​(Å=Êæ​(Å=Ê€r ​wp_25704_2[1]08.doc:​ pZ¨​pl€ê‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Êæ​(Å=Êæ​(Å=Ê€r [1]WP_257~1.DOC;​ xd¨​plÀ​í‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê$ (Å=Ê$ (Å=Ê​Š ​wp_26836_2008.doc;​ pZ¨​plÀ​í‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê$ (Å=Ê$ (Å=Ê​Š [1]WP_268~1.DOC<​olxb¨​pl`™î‹#=Ê»​9Ò<Ê24 (Å=Ê24 (Å=Ê`` wp_4406_2002.doc<​olpZ¨​pl`™î‹#=[1]»​9Ò<Ê24 (Å=Ê24 (Å=Ê`` [1]WP_440~1.DOC=​ xb¨​pl ¦ñ‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê@['(Å=Ê@['(Å=Ê`R wp_5033_2004.doc=​ pZ¨​pl ¦ñ‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê@['(Å=Ê@['(Å=Ê`R [1]WP_503~1.DOC>​ xb¨​pl@-ó‹#=Ê»​9Ò<ÊN‚.(Å=ÊN‚.(Å=Ê`Z wp_6902_2006.doc>​ pZ¨​pl@-ó‹#=Ê»​9Ò<ÊN‚.(Å=ÊN‚.(Å=Ê`Z [1] [1]WP_690~1.DOC?​ xb¨​pl€:ö‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê\©5(Å=Ê\©5(Å=Ê wp_7610_2006.doc?​ pZ¨​pl€:ö‹#=ÊèÀ:Ò<Ê\©5(Å=Ê\©5(Å=Ê [1]WP_761~1.DOC@​olxb¨​plÀGù‹#=Ê​Qâø<ÊÄ2?(Å=ÊÄ2?(Å=Êø wp_9083_2001.doc@​olpZ¨​plÀGù‹#=Ê​Qâø<ÊÄ2?(Å=ÊÄ2?(Å=Êø [1]WP_908~1.DOCA​ xb[1]¨​pl Ûý‹#=Ê»​9Ò<ÊÒYF(Å=ÊÒYF(Å=Êpb wp_9569_2009.docA​ pZ¨​pl Ûý‹#=Ê»​9Ò<ÊÒYF(Å=ÊÒYF(Å=Êpb [1]WP_956~1.DOCB​ xb¨​pl Ûý‹#=Ê˜äåø<Êà€M(Å=Êà€M(Å=Êö wp_9584_2001.docB​ pZ¨​pl Ûý‹#=Ê˜äåø<Êà€M(Å=Êà€M(Å=Êö [1]WP_958~1.DOC[1][1][1][1][1]ÐÏ​à¡±á> þÿ ​wyþÿÿÿvÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð​¿ ÿ… bjbjUU -œ7|7|​¨Qÿÿÿÿÿÿl```4”(¼¼¼​ÐÜ​Ü​Ü​8​0​4ÐV(Àp​p​"’​’​’​’​’​’​Õ'[1]×'×'×'×'×'×'$* [1]6,bû'​¼’​’​’​’​’​û'L​¼¼’​’​(L​L​L​’​´ ¼’​¼’​Õ'L​’​Õ'L​ø​L​D#:q',¼¼Õ'’​d​ @/láø<ÊÐ Ü​F​[1]​' Õ'&(0V(§'.˜,Zò[1]˜,Õ'L​ÐÐ¼¼¼¼[1]ÙHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 & 20345 of 2001 Date : 22.09.2009 Between : T.Satya Suguna Devi & others. …..Petitioners And Estates Officer & A.P.D., Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad. …..Respondent For the petitioners : Sri M.V.Durga Prasad and Sri Prabhakar Sripada, Advocates. For the Respondent : Sri E.Madanmohan Rao. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. AIR 1977 BOMBAY 220 2. AIR 1982 SC 1081 3. AIR 2003 JHARKHAND 17 4. AIR 2003 MP 256 5. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290 6. 2004 (3) ALT 276 7. AIR 1991 SC 855 (1) 8. AIR 1972 SC 2205 C/15 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 & 20345 of 2001 Date : 22.09.2009 Between : T.Satya Suguna Devi & others. …..Petitioners And Estates Officer & A.P.D., Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 & 20345 of 2001 COMMON ORDER : As much as common questions of law are raised for consideration on same set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned the orders issued under Section 5-A (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, by the respondents. Through the aforesaid orders, the respondent has ordered for removal of flats in a residential complex, namely ‘Archana Apartments’. As in all the writ petitions, identical orders are questioned, I refer to the facts as narrated in W.P.No.14417 of 2001. 3. One Smt. C.Kamsamma, claiming to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 600 square yards in the premises bearing No.1-11-252/1/E in Survey No.19 of Begumpet, has sold her undivided share to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994, bearing document No.3071/94. After purchase of the said plot, the petitioner has entered into an agreement for construction of flat bearing No.204 and the same was constructed, and ever since, the petitioner is in its possession and enjoyment. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Mamilla Krishna Reddy, who was the father of Smt.C.Kamsamma, was the original owner and possessor of the land as he has purchased the same from its earlier owner one Sri Hzaratulla by a registered sale deed bearing document No.6041, dated 5th Aban, 1358 Fasli, and the said property is given to Smt.C.Kamsamma by way of pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage. Afterwards, when there was a claim by her sisters also for the property, the said Kamsamma had filed suit for declaration of title, in O.S.No.252 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.1991. Thereafter, she entered into development agreement with M/s.Naveen Constructions on 4th of January 1993, to develop the said property and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to construct an apartment complex, vide permission bearing No.415/12, dated 12th February 1993. The petitioner has availed housing loan from Canara Bank and having paid the said amount to the vendor of the land, she got constructed the flat in question and is in possession of the same by letting out to a tenant. At this stage, respondents have issued the notice dated 11th January 2001, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, alleging that the Airports authority has got surveyed the land in Survey No.15 and it was found that the building in question is constructed by encroaching upon its land to an extent of 570 Square yards, as such, directed the petitioner to remove these flats. Initially, the petitioner sent a telegram dated 13.02.2001, thereafter, through an Advocate, got filed a detailed representation dated 24.02.2001, questioning the authority of the respondents in invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971. After filing of explanation by the petitioner, the respondents have issued the impugned notice dated 26.04.2001 in exercise of powers under Section 5-A (2) of the said Act, directing the petitioner for removal of her flat. In the aforesaid impugned notice, it is stated that the land in Survey No.15 of Begumpet village has been acquired for establishment of Hyderabad Airport by the then Civil Aviation Department by paying compensation, and as such, the said land is now in possession of the Airports Authority, as such, the land in Survey No.15 is the public premises and as the land in the said survey number is encroached by Archana Apartments, which are constructed in Survey No.15 but not in Survey No.19, the representation of the petitioner is not considered. Consequently, orders are issued for removal of said flats. 4. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the said apartments are constructed in the land covered by Survey No.19, but not 15. It is submitted that after purchase of the land by one Mamilla Krishna Reddy by the registered sale deed bearing document No.6041, dated 5th Aban, 1358 Fasli, the name of said Krishna Reddy is recorded in all the revenue records right from the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, and after the said land was given in pasupu kumkuma to Smt.C.Kamsamma, her name was also recorded in all the subsequent pahanis prepared for Begumpet village. It is also the case of the petitioner that when there was an interference by the National Airports Authority, the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Smt.Kamsamma has filed the suit in O.S.No.137 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 16th July 1997. It is submitted that when the respondents have lost their claim in Civil Proceedings, it is not open for them to invoke the provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, and deprive the petitioner of her property, by resorting to summary inquiry contemplated under the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as the apartment complex is constructed in Survey No.19 of Begumpet village, but not in Survey No.15 as claimed by the respondents, it is beyond the scope of the provisions contained under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971 to resolve such disputes and to order for removal of structures. It is submitted that in view of the long-standing possession of the vendor of the petitioner and the petitioner after construction of the flat in question, if there is any claim by the respondent-Authority, it is for them to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their claim, but at the same time, they cannot pass any order unilaterally, presuming that the property in question is ‘public premises’ within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971. 5. On behalf of respondents, counter affidavit is filed by the Senior Manager (Law). In the counter, while generally denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that during the course of inquiry under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, the claim of the petitioner was that she has purchased the ownership rights in Survey No.19 and Archana Apartments are constructed in Survey No.19, which is outside the Airports Authority owned land.