THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 43560 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4-19 guntas in Sy. No. 279/1 of Ragannaguda Village, Hamlet of Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, presently Abdullahpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ('subject land').
The claim of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed on 28.06.2004 from an Ex-serviceman, Major C. Harikishan Das, who was assigned the subject land, under the Laoni Rules, 1950, in the year 1965. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has also issued 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of said Harikishan Das for sale/registration purpose. While so, the then APSRTC came up with a claim that the subject land was allotted in its favour in the year 1993, vide G.O.Ms. No. 130, dated 09.02.1993. In this regard, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District issued a show-cause notice, dated 27.04.2007 in the name of Major Harikishan Das, under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, on the ground that such allotment was illegal, as the lands could not be assigned to Ex-servicemen above the cadre of a Jawan and sought to resume the subject land. The said notice was challenged in W.P. Nos. 13808 and 10017 of 2007 by individual plot purchasers and the petitioner being purchaser of the subject land respectively. The said writ petitions were disposed of by common order, dated 22.09.2017, with a direction to the petitioners therein to submit 2 their explanation to the said show-cause notice. Challenging the said common order, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in W.A. No. 71 of 2018. While disposing of the appeal on 05.03.2018, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that in fact, the vendor of the petitioner had died in the year 2005 itself and thus, the notice, dated 27.04.2007 was issued in the name of a dead person, and on that ground alone, set aside the said notice granting liberty to the revenue authorities to issue notice afresh to the legal heirs of the deceased Major Harikishan Das, or to those who have purchased the lands from the original assignee.
Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that even though the revenue authorities were granted liberty to issue show- cause notice afresh, no such legal proceedings have been initiated so far. Further, the respondent No. 1 Corporation, which is claiming to be the allottee of the subject land, is a party respondent No. 5 to the appeal in W.A. No. 71 of 2018 and therefore, the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 71 of 2018 is binding on it. Further, the respondents, without issuing any fresh notice, as directed in W.A. No. 71 of 2018, are claiming certain rights over the subject land and are highhandedly interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land. That the petitioner is in physical possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.4-19 guntas in Sy. No. 279/1 of Ragannaguda Village, Hamlet of Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, presently Abdullahpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of the sale deed executed by the original assignee and after purchase, his name is mutated in the revenue 3 record by the Tahsildar concerned. Further, Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed are also issued in favour of the petitioner.
Adverting to the counter averments, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that the respondent No. 1 is the allottee of the land to an extent of Ac.12-00 guntas in Sy. No. 279 by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 130, dated 09.02.1993. It is stated that the petitioner, has already converted the subject land, into the plots and sold to various individuals and is now trying to take advantage and encroach into the land allotted to the respondent No. 1 Corporation. That the writ petition is devoid of merits and has to be dismissed with costs.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner and another person, by name M. Janardhan Reddy, have purchased the property through a registered sale deed, dated 28.06.2004, bearing document No.9868 of 2004 from the original assignee with specific boundaries shown in the schedule of property. A site map is also enclosed to the sale deed. By virtue of the said sale deed, the petitioner was put in physical possession of the subject land. That the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar, has mutated the name of the purchaser vide Proceedings No.1963 of 2004, dated 07.09.2004. Thereafter, the other purchaser has released his share of the land in favour of the petitioner vide registered document No.4763, dated 08.07.2005. That, after the execution of the registered Release Deed, the 4 petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the entire land of Ac.4.19 gts., which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. The pahani for the year 2009-2010 reflects the name of the vendor of the petitioner.
Even on an earlier occasion, the revenue authorities had issued a show cause notice to the vendor of the petitioner herein seeking to cancel the assignment made in his favour. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 10017 of 2007 before this Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 22.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.71 of 2018. The present respondent-Corporation is a party to the said proceedings. A reading of the Writ Appeal order clearly reveals that the vendor of the petitioner was allotted the subject land; that the petitioner and his vendor were in possession of the land and that the said allotment was sought to be cancelled. The Division Bench, in its order dated 05.03.2018 in W.A.No.71 of 2018, has specifically observed as under:
"On the short ground that the show cause notice, dated 27.04.2007, was issued to a person who was not even alive as on the date on which the said notice was issued, the said notice must be and is, accordingly, set aside. Suffice it to make it clear that this order shall not disable the respondents from issuing a notice afresh to the legal heirs of the deceased Major Harikishan Das, or to those who purchased these lands from him, in accordance with law."
But, till date no action was taken by the concerned department.
Be that as it may, the original assignee, Major C. Harikishan Das, was granted permission to occupy the subject land by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad East Taluk, vide proceedings No. B1/2469/65 in Form-G, which was prescribed Form under Rule 9
(g) of the Laoni Rules, 1950, as early as on 11.11.1965. 5 Thereafter, the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No. C/2080/98, dated 27.01.2004, had ordered for correction of the extent of land to Ac.4.19 guntas, from Ac.5.00 guntas in the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Subsequently, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No. E4/2624/ 2004, dated 18.06.2004, had issued 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the original assignee, Major Harikishan Das, for selling away the subject land. As observed earlier, the petitioner had purchased the subject land through registered sale deed, that his name was mutated in the revenue records, and that the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were also issued in favour of the petitioner. Even the original assignee, Major Harikishan Das, was also issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Even though a counter has been filed by the respondent No. 1, except filing a copy of the common order, dated 22.09.2017 passed in W.P. Nos. 13808 and 10017 of 2007, no piece of paper is filed to support the various contentions raised therein. In the counter, according to respondent No. 1, there was a proposal to the Government for alienating Ac.12.00 guntas of land in Sy. No. 279; the said proposal was submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of constructing a bus depot, bus terminal & staff quarters; the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 130, dated 09.02.1993 instructing the District Collector to alienate the land to an extent of Ac.12.00 in Sy. No. 279 in favour of respondent No. 1 on payment of market value of Rs.30/- per sq.yd.; the Land Acquisition Officer vide letter No. LA/230(77)/89, had informed the District Collector stating that the respondent No. 1 Corporation was requested to 6 remit the market value of the land, and thereafter a sanction was made by Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1 for paying an amount of Rs.17,42,400/- towards the market value of the land of Ac.12.00 guntas at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.yd.; that the respondent No. 1 has deposited the market value vide challan No. 04415, dated 17.04.2007; and that the possession of the subject land was handed over to the respondent No. 1 under a panchanama on 18.05.2007 and since then, the respondent No. 1 has been in possession of the subject land. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent No. 1, no single document, to substantiate the said claim, is filed. Admittedly, the common order dated 22.09.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 13808 and 10017 of 2007 stood set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide orders, dated 05.03.2018 in W.A. No. 71 of 2018. In view of the same, any observations made in the common order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 13808 and 10017 of 2007 is of no helpful to the respondent No. 1. In view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the petitioner in order to establish his claim that he is not only having title to the subject land but also physical possession, the respondent No. 1 cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land. The documents filed by the petitioner clearly show that right from 2004 he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land and prior to that, from 1965 onwards, his vendor, who is the original assignee, was in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land. In the absence of any document showing that any deed of conveyance was executed in favour of respondent No. 1, or that they were put 7 in physical possession of the subject land, this Court cannot brush aside the documents filed by the petitioner.
For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land. It is left open to the respondents to approach the competent civil court if they are so advised. In case, the respondents file a civil suit, the parties are bound by the decree likely to be passed by the trial court. In case a civil suit is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations/findings made by this Court hereinabove.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date:24.03.2021 tsr 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 43560 of 2018 DATED: -03-2021 9