Item No.23
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.526 of 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated
20.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.27375 of 2007 filed by him praying inter alia for declaring
the action of the respondent No.2/District Collector, Hyderabad
District rejecting his application for regularisation of house bearing Municipal No.8-2-602/2/B, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 04.09.2007, as illegal and as a sequitur, direct the respondents to regularise the said property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 08.06.2006.
2. As per the averments of the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition, he is the sole owner of the subject premises, having purchased the same on the basis of an irrevocable Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney along with possession for valuable consideration, duly registered on 08.03.2006. The said property was purchased from one Smt. P. Nagarathnam. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner's vendor, Smt. P. Nagarathnam, had purchased the subject land from one Mr. M. Subrahmanyam by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1976. The appellant/writ W.A.No.526 of 2017 Page 1 of 5 petitioner states that there was a built-up structure in existence on the subject land, constructed as long back as in the year 1976 and the revenue authorities had started claiming that the said property falls in Town Survey No.6, Block M, Ward No.111 that correlates to Survey No.403 of Shaikpet Village and is classified as a Government land, thus treating his predecessor-in-title as an encroacher.
3. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner had approached the Revenue Department by filing an application for regularisation on 29.06.2006, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 08.06.2006. But, the said application was rejected by the respondent No.2/District Collector with an observation that no relevant documents had been placed on record to demonstrate that there was a structure existing on the subject land. It was further averred by the appellant/writ petitioner that the respondent No.2/District Collector had ignored the photographs filed by him showing that there was a structure raised on the subject land and that itself was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the said structure was in existence prior to 31.03.1990, the cut off date fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.674, dated 08.06.2006, thereby entitling him for regularisation.
4. On the other hand, the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the sale deed dated 02.02.1976 executed in favour of his predecessor-in-title did not demonstrate the existence of any structure on the subject land; that the property tax receipts filed by the appellant/writ petitioner W.A.No.526 of 2017 Page 2 of 5 were from the year 2002 onwards and not prior to 31.03.1990, as per the requirements stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 08.06.2006; that there were no structures on the subject land when the appellant/writ petitioner had submitted an application for regularisation to the respondents. It was also stated that after the order dated 04.09.2007 was passed, the appellant/writ petitioner had again applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 which was also rejected and the land was declared as Government land by the Special Court under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/writ petitioner had filed W.P.No.12799 of 1996, which was also dismissed. The said order has admittedly attained finality.
5. After noting the stand taken by both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that the sale deed dated 02.02.1976, executed in favour of his predecessor-in-title, did not disclose the existence of any structure and even the property tax receipts filed by the appellant/writ petitioner related to the period from 01.04.2002. Reference was made to the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 declaring the subject land as Government land and it was concluded by the court that the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief, in view of the fact that he could not demonstrate that there was any built-up structure W.A.No.526 of 2017 Page 3 of 5 existing on the subject land for him to seek regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 08.06.2006.
6. We have enquired from learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as to whether his client is in a position to produce any property tax receipts even today, that could demonstrate payment of municipal tax in respect of the built-up structure on the subject land, for the period prior to 31.03.1990. Learned counsel submits that the appellant/writ petitioner is not in possession of any such document. Instead, he reiterates the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and asserts that the photographs filed by the appellant/writ petitioner have been wrongly ignored by the court.
7. We are afraid that photographs cannot be a substitute for the relevant documents demonstrating existence of a built-up structure on the subject land for which, this court need not go beyond the registered sale deed dated 02.02.1976 which does not mention any built up structure. Assuming for a moment that the structure in question was not in existence when the sale deed dated 02.02.1976 was executed in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the appellant/writ petitioner and that the structure had been raised subsequently, even then, the application of G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 08.06.2006 was dependant on the said structure being in existence prior to 31.03.1990, which could have been demonstrated on production of property tax receipts issued by the civic authority. The same are also not available with the appellant/writ petitioner.
W.A.No.526 of 2017 Page 4 of 5
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order that warrants interference. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 16.04.2021 JSU W.A.No.526 of 2017 Page 5 of 5