A.P. Housing Board vs Mohammad Sadatullah & Ors

The litigation has a chequered history and to understand the controversy raised by the parties in the present group of appeals, it is necessary to bear in mind the facts and circumstances under which this Court is called upon to resolve the controversy.

Respondent No. 4 filed a separate counter, contending that one Raj Lakshmana Rao, Jagirdar of Yousufguda village granted five acres of land of Survey No. 45 in the year 1940 as Inam which included the 'petition schedule land' to his father P. Venkaiah for clearing the jungle and for removing the boulders found in it. The said P. Venkaiah was regularly paying land revenue for that five acres of land and was cultivating it by raising dry crops. Ultimately, the said Jagirdar granted patta in favour of P. Venkaiah. The father of Respondent No.4 died long back and he found Urdu document with the Seal of Jagirdar of Yousufguda village. When translated, it was found to be a patta certificate issued by late Jagirdar Lakshmana Rao in favour of father of respondent No.4. Thus, he was the owner and possessor of land of Survey No. 45 admeasuring five acres and cannot be treated as 'land grabber'. He had been in occupation of the land being claimed by him since the time of his father, he is entitled to patta rights under Rule 2 of the Rules regarding grant of pattadar rights in Khalsa village.

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a common counter. It was their case that land in Yousufguda village was included in the municipal limits of MCH long back. It is now fully developed urban area used for building purposes. According to them, if the 'petition schedule land' belonged to late Farhatulla as was claimed by the petitioners, it should have been shown in their declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. But it was not included. According to these respondents, they purchased 1760 sq. yards from the 'petition schedule land' along with structures thereon which was surrounded by a compound wall. After obtaining necessary permission from MCH, they had made construction on the property. In the written submissions filed before this Court, they have stated that they have improved the property and have built a four-storey building in 1986 and are running a college since about two decades. They stated that Yousufguda village was an ex-Jagir village of Lakshmana Rao, the Jagirdar. Though it was claimed on behalf of the petitioners that late Farhatulla had purchased fifty acres of land of Survey Nos. 45 to 48, the sale deed in respect of the said transaction was not filed. It was further stated that the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad framed Rules in 1356 Fasli regarding the grant of pattadari rights in non-Khalsa villages (Jagir villages). Under Rule 2, all persons who held Jagir lands paying land revenue in all the Jagirs were deemed to be pattadars of the land held by them, notwithstanding any oral or written agreement between the Jagirdars or any other person and also notwithstanding any entry contrary to that effect in the concerned village records. Rule 3 of the Rules required the Revenue Authorities to record the names of actual occupants. Rule 4 directed that the names of the Jagirdars should not be recorded in the Revenue Records as pattadars of lands, unless Jagirdars were personally cultivating such lands. Under Rule 5, the Jagir ryots were entitled to restoration of possession of the lands that were in their cultivation even if they were evicted by the Jagirdars. Rule 6 made the rights accrued to the Jagir ryots heritable. Though the Rules were not implemented prior to the abolition of Jagirs, the Revenue Officials were directed to implement them by Circular No.2 of 1949. Late Farhatullah worked as Collector in the Revenue Department and his services were terminated after a police action. In his capacity as the District Collector, he got the entries manipulated in the Revenue Records in his favour ignoring the existing facts as to occupation of Jagir ryots. Respondent Nos.5, 6 and other respondents, who were alleged to have grabbed the 'petition schedule land', were in actual occupation of the lands since more than 50 years. On that ground, possession of the land could not be taken over from them. Neither Farhatulla nor the Government could get the land vacated. Even if it were taken for granted that Farhatullah or the Government had title over the 'petition schedule land', their rights got extinguished as respondents had perfected their title over the said land by 'adverse possession'.

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals filed by A.P. Housing Board and respondent No.4 deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The appeal filed by the original petitioners-land-owners deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by setting aside the finding recorded by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court on the question of adverse possession, however, by granting liberty to the contesting parties to take appropriate proceedings by approaching a competent Civil Court if they (or any of them) claim title on the basis of adverse possession. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.