THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
W.P.No.12264 OF 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from H.No.20- 4-368/2/C/2 admeasuring 238 Sq. Yards situated at Khilwath, Himmatpura, Shalibanda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'), as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased the same under registered sale deed document No.297/94 admeasuring 120 sq. yards and subsequently purchased remaining land of 118 sq. yards under registered sale deed document No.260/2005 and constructed a house therein. While so, the respondent No.1-Tahsildar, Bahadurpura, visited the subject property on 25.05.2010 and threatened to dispossess the petitioner, without any authority of law. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and requested to furnish the details of land as to how the same were identified as a Government land. However, no reply was forthcoming from the respondents. Therefore, left with no other option, she was constrained to file the present writ petition.
On 03.06.2010, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of eight weeks and the same was extended on 03.09.2010 until further orders. 2
Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition stating that the premises No.20-4- 368/2/C/2 claimed by the petitioner falls in T.S.No.35 of Shaher-e-Hyd Village, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District. The land has been recorded as 'G-Abadi' in Col.No.20 of the TSLR admeasuring 193 sq. mtrs. whereas the extent claimed by the petitioner is only 118 sq. mtrs. and therefore the land claimed by the petitioner is separate and distinct from the subject land in question. It is further pointed out that in the documents filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, the premises number was shown as 20-4-368/2/C whereas in the writ petition the petitioner is claiming the premises No.20-4-368/2/C/2, which is different from the land in question. It is further stated that as per the instructions of the then Collector, Hyderabad, during the review meeting held on 25.05.2010, the vacant government lands have been identified and handed over to the Rajiv Vidya Mission Department on 27.05.2010 duly conducting panchanama for the purpose of construction of building for Government High School, Shahgunj. However, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the construction of school building was stalled. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Reply has been filed by the petitioner denying the counter averments and stating that the adjacent lands of the subject property were also mentioned as 'G-Abadi' in the 3 Town and Survey Register, however, huge constructions were made in the adjacent lands whereas only in respect of the property of the petitioner, the official respondents are taking legally untenable objections and interfering with the possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that the subject property is not a vacant land as claimed by the respondents, the petitioner has constructed a small house in the said premises and residing therein since several years. It is further stated that the respondents have not taken any steps to evict the petitioner and no notice has been issued till date to the petitioner. That the proper remedy available to the respondents is to approach the competent Civil Court and file a suit if they are claiming right over the property.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for all the respondents. Perused the record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property by building a compound wall and small house structure in the subject land. The counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the photos filed which evidence the same. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the TSLR filed by him wherein it shows that in respect of the TS Number which is claimed by the official respondents except mentioning that it is 'G-abadi' and that it is a house plot, there is nothing to indicate that the land belongs to the government. Learned 4 counsel has also stated that the plots adjoining the subject lands are also classified as 'G-abadi' in the TSLR, and except the TSLR, the Government has not filed any other piece of document to substantiate their claim that it is a government land.
In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another1, this Court while extracting the following portion of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.115 and 160 of 2000:
"Entries in TSLR are no doubt relevant. But they are not conclusive. It is common knowledge that there may be many instances where the owners of land in urban areas will not be in a position to correlate the house numbers or ward numbers to the survey numbers or the entries may not be upto date and that may introduce some practical difficulties in obtaining TSLR extracts. ................. The TSLR cannot be regarded as a sole guiding factor to the competent authority while dealing with the building applications. TSLR entries have to be considered in conjunction with other documents which the applicants would like to place reliance upon. The stand taken by the Municipal Corporation that the proof of ownership/possession in the form of TSLR is an essential pre-requisite cannot be upheld though as we have already observed, such document is a relevant piece of evidence. It will have to be considered in combination with other documents which will have bearing on the title and possession of the applicant for building permission. At best, it can be said that insistence on the extracts from TSLR register may be a rule of prudence. But, it cannot be a rule of rigid and mechanical application."1
2001 SCC OnLine AP 397 5 has held as under:
"25. It is further held that "the question of title and lawful possession of the applicants cannot be solely decided on the basis of TSLR entries, but also on the basis of any other relevant evidence that may be furnished by the applicants."
26. It is thus clear that an entry in TSLR itself cannot be the conclusive proof of title or lack of it, and the decision either to grant or refuse permission cannot be taken solely on the basis of an entry made in the TSLR. It may be one of the factors that may have to be taken into consideration along with the other material available on record. An entry made in TSLR per se could not create any doubt or cloud on the right, title and interest of a person in respect of any land."
The above judgment has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs. Hyderabad Potteries Ltd and another2 and was followed in a catena of cases by this High Court. In view of the above settled legal position, unless and until the TSLR is supported by any other revenue record, the Government cannot lay any claim on the subject property solely based on the entry in TSLR. Moreover, the word 'G-abadi' means that the place is inhabited or populated and does not necessarily mean that the said lands are government lands or vest with the Government.
Even though it is contended by the official respondents that it is an open plot, as can be seen from the photographs filed by the petitioner, the subject lands are surrounded by a compound wall and a small house structure is also in 2 2010 (5) SCC 382 6 existence. Moreover, there are sale deeds to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that she had purchased the property in question through registered sale deeds of the year 1994 and 2005 respectively. Admittedly, in this case, as can be seen from the record, except the TSLR, the Government has not filed any other document to support its claim that it is a government land. If the official respondents have any other document to substantiate their claim, they are free to approach the competent Civil Court for recovery of possession of the property, but cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner or take up summary proceedings to evict her.
In Government of A.P. vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"9. .... Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision."
In view of the above settled legal principle, where there are disputed questions of title, the official respondents have to necessarily approach the civil Court to seek declaration of title and also for recovery of possession.
For afore-stated reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the official respondents are directed not to interfere with the 3 (1982) 2 SCC 134 7 possession of the petitioner. However, this order does not preclude the official respondents from approaching the civil Court seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, if they are so advised.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 23-02-2021 sur