State Of A.P vs Smt. Prameela Modi And Ors

The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State are tell tale. They are required to be noticed in detail. The lis between the State of A.P. and the respondents centers around a piece of land admeasuring acres 3-27 guntas situated in Khairatabad village in Hyderabad District. As rightly pointed out by the High Court the dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State attained its freedom still awaits its final resolution. Brief facts are as follows:-

The Gazette Notification of the Town Survey Record showing Blocks A-N in Ward No. 89 as Government land whereas the implementation of the order of the High Court in WP M.P. No. 6897 which is marked as Ex.B-36 was 28.08.1975 which was subsequent to Ex.A-1 on the basis of the entries in the town survey proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act were initiated on 16.11.19991 against Smt. Prameela Modi which were set aside on 28.08.1993 by the Joint Collector stating that the land belongs to Smt. Prameela Modi and that she is not an encroacher. The Joint Collector referred to the history of the case in this order. The Joint Collector directed Smt. Prameela Modi to approach the Collector for correction of revenue records including TSLR, which was ordered by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement on a reference by the District Collector. Accordingly, permission was accorded by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in file No. CSS and LR Ref. No.P5/316/94 dated 12.05.1994 for the correction of entries in the Town Survey Land register observing that since the lands under reference are prima facie patta lands as per survey settlement registers and village registers in favour of Smt. Prameela Modi before town survey was conducted and announced in 1976. The sub-division was carried out in Town Survey records vide proceedings in file No. G/TS/98/94 as T.S. No. 3/1/1A and 3/1/1/B correlating to Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3. Further, the town survey plans prepared on 26.05.1994 in pursuance of the corrections carried out in Town Survey records in 1994 shows the physical location of the land of the first respondent with the town survey nos. which tallies exactly with the present location. Panchanama was conducted vide proceedings in File No. G./TS/107/94 dated 01.06.1994 by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records and boundaries of the lands in T.S.Nos.3/1/1A and 3/1/1B in Block K, Ward No.89, correlating to Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3 of the Khairatabad village were fixed with measurements. The extent and location of the lands belonging to 1st respondent tallies exactly with the present location.

The allocation of sub-division number SY. No. 116 which consists of private lands and also government lands was done by the Survey Officials connected to the State Government. Right from the year 1945 respondent's rights over the land in occupation is evident from the copy of the sethwar issued by the Sarfekhas authorities the then authorized department to issue the same. The sethwar clearly indicates that the land in Sy. No.116 was a compact Block but basing upon the respective recognition of rights of the private parties over the land in their occupation the Sub Divisional numbers carried out on 116 only.

After the dismissal of S.L.P. on 18.08.2000, the respondent No.7 herein filed a contempt case being C.C.No. 1061/2001 against the District Collector for not issuing the No Objection Certificate as directed by the High Court in W.P.No. 10159/98 as it attained finality with the dismissal of S.L.P. No.12103/2000. The State filed Land Grabbing Case against the respondents and issued No Objection Certificate to the respondents in respect of the subject property, stating that the same is subject to outcome of the Land Grabbing Case. The contempt case was closed on 24.01.2002.

Provided that the Special court shall, by notification, specify the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such notification, shall state that any objection which may be received by the Special Court from any person including the custodian of evacuee property within the period specified herein will be considered by it:

Thus it is seen that the arguments advanced by Mr. A.K. Ganguly is totally contradictory to the above provisions of the Act and that Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the matters with respect to the ownership, title and lawful possession.

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Special Court and also the view taken by the High Court that the respondents herein have not grabbed the land nor can be characterized as land grabbers. We further hold that the State of A.P. and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the appellant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.