THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)
Since the subject matter of both these writ petitions is the
land situated in old Survey No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313)
corresponding to T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1, situated at Banjara
Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, and since common
questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these writ
petitions, both these writ petitions are taken up together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.5948 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner-
Mohd.Amerullah Khan, challenging the judgment, dated
25.10.2010, passed in L.G.C.No.104 of 1998, by the Special Court
under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short, 'Special
Court'), whereby, the subject LGC filed by him to declare him as
absolute owner of the application schedule property and to declare
the respondent Nos.1 to 9 as land grabbers and evict them from
the application schedule property and also direct them to pay damages to the petitioner and to punish them under the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, was dismissed. That led to filing of this writ petition by the petitioner.
3. W.P.No.11067 of 2011 is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the subject LGC No.104 of 1998, seeking a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forebear from dispossessing them from the land and structures ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 2 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 bearing house Nos.8-2-677/A/1/1, 8-2-677/A/2 and 8-2- 677/A/2/1, admeasuring 550 Sq. yards, 400 Sq. yards and 530 Sq. yards respectively, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, in Old Survey No.129/43 corresponding to T.S.No.26 and 28/1/1, Block-T, Ward No.11 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, without following due procedure of law and without finalizing the regularization applications filed by them. That led to filing of this writ petition by the petitioners.
4. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5948 of 2011, Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.11067 of 2011, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents in both these writ petitions and perused the record.
5. For clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the subject L.G.C.No.104 of 1998.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5948 of 2011 (applicant) would inter alia contend that the impugned judgment of the Special Court is contrary to law and facts. The conclusions reached by the Special Court are inconsistent with the findings recorded by it in the impugned judgment. The Special Court, while upholding the title of the applicant with regard to Survey No.129/43, erroneously dismissed the subject LGC filed by him. Further, the Special Court, arrived at a conclusion that the action of the then Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records in making amendments to the total area covered by Survey No.129/43 does not seem to be in order and are to be treated as illegal. Further, ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 3 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 the Special Court categorically recorded a finding that the application schedule land in T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1, belong to the applicant, was taken over by the Government under ULC Act. Having observed thus, the Special Court erroneously concluded that the applicant presently does not hold any title to the application schedule property, which is contrary to its own findings. The findings of the Special Court in the impugned judgment with regard to ULC proceedings are ex-facie illegal, unlawful, based on no evidence and against the principles of natural justice. There was no pleading by the Government (respondent No.9) in their counter and as such, no issue was framed in relation to ULC proceedings of the applicant. The ULC official, who gave evidence as R.W.7, admitted that surplus land was not demarcated specifically and no plan is filed to that effect in the Court. Though the applicant adduced plenty of cogent and convincing evidence to prove his case that he is the absolute owner of the application schedule property and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have grabbed an extent of 1660.36 square metres of land situated at Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, the Special Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, erroneously dismissed the application of the applicant. It is settled law that in regard to finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a Writ of Certiorari can be issued, if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. The impugned judgment of the Special Court suffers from infirmities and ultimately prayed to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for. In ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 4 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions.
1. Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan and others1
2. M/s.Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. Vs. Kitab Singh2
3. State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. G.V.Mohan and others3
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11067 of 2011 (respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the subject LGC) would inter alia contend that the Special Court erred in holding that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not proved their rival title set up in respect of land claimed by them and that the rival title set up by them is not true, valid and binding on the applicant and that they have no title over the land, which they are in occupation nor they have established their right over the said land by adverse possession. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchased the subject houses from their vendors under registered sale deeds for valuable consideration and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of one and all. The sale deeds under which the respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchased the subject houses disclose existing buildings and structures over the said land for over three decades. The vendors of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were in uninterrupted possession of the subject houses since 27.02.1981. There is ample evidence on record to prove the title of respondent Nos.1 to 3 over the subject three houses. Neither Fatima Begum nor Khayeemunnisa Begum have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the schedule three houses or any part thereof, which are the family properties of respondents 1 to 3. The lands said to have been held surplus by Khayeemunnisa Begum is 1 AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477 2 AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1172 3 2014 (4) ALD 757 (DB) ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 5 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 absolutely incorrect. The claim of the applicant that the schedule three houses form part of Sy.No.129/43 corresponding to T.S.No.28/1/1, Block-T, Ward-11 of Shaikpet village, cannot be sustained. The applicant has no right and title over the extent of the schedule three houses belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Similarly, any claim by any of the other respondents inter se is also unsustainable. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be termed as land grabbers and ultimately prayed to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents would submit that neither the applicant nor the remaining unofficial respondents have any right or claim over the application schedule property. During the year 1985, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, made some corrections by deleting an extent of 865 Sq.mts., out of total extent of 1920 Sq.mts., in T.S.No.28/1 and created new sub-division, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/1 in respect of extent of 865 Sq.mts., and included it in Sy.No.129/43 and recorded in the name of Fathima Begum, who is the mother of the applicant. Further, after deleting the extent of 865 Sq.mts., out of 1920 Sq.mts., the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, gave a separate sub-division number, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/2 for the balance extent of 1055 Sq.mts., which is recorded as GVM road. Under Section 14 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the entries in the town survey records can only be corrected through a decree of the Civil Court, within three years, from the date of publication of the notification of Survey. The notification was published in the District Gazette Extraordinary ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 6 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 No.13, dated 28.02.1997. Since no objections were received, the entries in the Town survey recorded became final. Therefore, the corrections made in respect of T.S.No.28/1, Block-T, Ward No.11 and creation of two sub-divisions i.e. T.S.No.28/1/1 and 28/1/2 for 865 Sq.mts and 1055 Sq.mts., respectively are not only unauthorized, but also lacks legal sanctity. For making such unauthorized corrections, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, and some of the employees, were kept under suspension. Therefore, neither the applicant nor the unofficial respondents have any legal right and are entitled to the extent of 865 Sq.mts., in T.S.No.28/1. The applicant and respondents 1 to 4, 7 & 8 are land grabbers to the said extent of the Government land and they are liable to be evicted from the said land. The Special Court rightly held that the application schedule land belongs to Government and it is open to the Government to take further action to remove any occupation from its land through legal process. There are no infirmities in the impugned judgment, dated 25.10.2010. The relief sought by the petitioners in both these writ petitions cannot be granted and ultimately prayed to dismiss both the writ petitions.
9. In view of the above rival contentions, the following point has come up for determination in both these writ petitions:
1. Whether the impugned judgment, dated
25.10.2010 passed in L.G.C.No.104 of 1998, by
the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, is liable to be set aside by
exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
ARR,J & Dr.SAJ
7 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011
2. Whether the writ petitioners in both these writ petitions are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
POINT:-
10. Before proceeding further, it is apt to state that a Tribunal may be competent to enter upon an enquiry, but in making an enquiry, if it acts in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or where no particular procedure is prescribed, it violates the principles of natural justice. A writ of certiorari may be available in such cases. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of Certiorari, but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, i.e., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. Broadly, Writ of Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Certiorari will also be issued when the court or Tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 8 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or tribunal, even if they are erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has appellate jurisdiction over a subject-matter, has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence, and substitute its own findings in Certiorari. It may, therefore, be taken as settled that a writ of Certiorari could be issued to correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. This is the purport of all the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5948 of 2011. Bearing in mind the above principles of law, this Court proceeded to examine the controversy between the parties to the litigation, to arrive at a conclusion.
11. The specific case of the applicant is that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have grabbed an extent of 1660.36 Sq.mts. of land situated at Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District.
ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 9 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 Originally, the grandfather of the applicant late Mohd. Asadullah was the pattadar for an extent of 3 acres of land comprising of old Sy.No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313) corresponding to T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1, situated at Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal. After the demise of his father, the mother of the applicant- late Smt. Fatima Begum succeeded to the property. During her life time, she sold away some extent of land to various persons, before the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act came into force. She sold an extent of 1672.26 Sq.mts of land to Smt.Khayeemunnissa Begum. The said Khayeemunnisa Begum filed declaration before the Special Officer & Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short, 'competent authority') in respect of the said land in C.C.No.E2/948/76, who decided the case to the effect that she was in possession of 672.26 Sq.mts of land in excess of the ceiling limit. The ULC officials erroneously demarcated the said surplus land, in the land of the applicant, without his knowledge, which was accepted by the competent authority. The Town Planning Authorities filed L.G.C. No.245 of 1995, as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 objected for construction of building in the allotted land. Since the competent authority wrongly demarcated the surplus land of Khayeemunnissa Begum in the land of the applicant, the applicant got himself impleaded in the said L.G.C.No.245 of 1995 as respondent No.6 and filed counter. The said L.G.C. is pending. The applicant made representation to the competent authority to rectify the defect and take necessary action for taking possession of surplus land of 672.26 Sq.mts, from the land of Smt Khayeemunnissa Begum, which is far away from the land of the applicant. However, without conducting any enquiry, ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 10 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 the competent authority informed the applicant that the sub- division record cannot be modified, as the possession was taken over long back. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner, Land Reforms, ULC, Hyderabad, which is pending for consideration. The mother of the applicant also filed declaration before the competent authority, including the remaining extent of 5413 Sq.mts. of land in Sy.No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313) corresponding to T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1 bearing Municipal No.8-2-677 held by her as on the date of the coming into force of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The competent authority passed orders on 04.08.1997, vide proceedings No.E/9/76 declaring that she was in possession of 1382.2 Sq.mts. of land in excess of ceiling limit. Further action in this matter is under process before the competent authority. The mother of the applicant died in the year 1986 and the applicant, who is the only legal heir, succeeded to her property. The applicant noticed grabbing of land by respondents 1 to 4 and reported the same to the competent authority for eviction of respondent No.1 to 4, so as to enable the applicant to handover the determined surplus land to the Government in due course. However, no action has been taken by the competent authority. Accordingly, the applicant prayed to declare that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as land grabbers of an extent of 1660.36 square metres, situated at Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, and evict them from the application schedule property and also direct them to pay damages and to punish them under the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 11 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011
12. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the applicant is a respondent in L.G.C.No.245 of 1995, wherein, respondent Nos.1 & 2 were also respondent Nos.1 & 2 therein. The said case was filed by respondent No.6 herein claiming as an allottee of the surplus land said to have been determined against one Khayeemunnisa Begum and the land was allotted to the respondent No.6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have purchased the land under three registered sale deeds and they are in possession of the same from the date of purchase. The property in question is surrounded by a compound wall and the same was assessed to municipal tax and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They developed the property as their own, to the knowledge of one and all. They acquired title to the land by prescription. The applicant is well aware of their possession and enjoyment over the said property. The applicant himself pleaded that his mother sold the land to some persons and the land surrendered by Khayeemunnisa Begum is far away from the said land and the competent authority acted erroneously. They perfected title by adverse possession as they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land from 1981 onwards, made constructions over the same and got the same assessed to the Municipal tax.
13. It is also the case of respondent Nos.1 and 3 that the applicant, with deliberate intention, falsely described the property. The mentioned boundaries are different for the schedule three houses. They purchased the schedule three houses for valuable consideration under three registered sale deeds, vide Document ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 12 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 Nos. 911/93, 4802/93 and 4794/93, dated 30.08.1993, executed by their vendors T.Ashok Kumar Dhir, T.Ramesh Kumar Dhir and Smt S.L.Dhir, respectively. Ever since the date of purchase, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties as absolute owners. The schedule three houses were purchased by the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 3 from one Shaik Ismail under three registered sale deeds bearing Doc. Nos.897/81, 880/81 and 899/81, dated 27.02.1981 respectively, which form part of Sy.No.128, situated at Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The schedule three houses are situated within a compound wall. The sale deeds also disclose that there were existing buildings and structures for over two decades. In fact, the vendors 1 to 5 of the three sale deeds dated 27.02.1981 are the issues of late Shaik Ahmad, who is predecessor in title in respect of the said property, who died on 01.10.1964. The Village Officer, Shaikpet, has issued a Certificate, dated 20.01.1981, stating that Shaik Ismail and others have been the pattadars of the land covered by Sy.No.128, as per the Revenue Records of Rights and the land revenue, NALA tax was paid in respect of the said properties. The certified extract of Khasra Pahani, which is a record of right for the year 1954-55, discloses that Sri Shaik Ahmed was the pattadar of Ac.1.20 gts of land covered by Sy.No.128, which was being cultivated by them. The subsequent pahanies for the years 1972-73, 1974-75, 1976-77, 1979-80 and 1980-81, up to the sale under registered sale deeds of 27.02.1981, disclose that those are patta lands. One S.Arora and another were having some agreement of sale in their favour from vendors 2 to 5 and therefore they have also joined in executing the registered sale ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 13 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 deeds as co-vendors. While so, Smt.Khayamunnisa Begum claims to have purchased 2000 Sq.yards of land covered by Sy.No.129/43. Under sale deed, dated 02.08.1963, executed by one Smt.Fatima Begum, she appears to have filed a declaration under Section 6 of ULC Act, in respect of the said land. Under the said declaration, she appears to have claimed gift of certain portions of the said land in favour of her two grandsons. The said claims appear to have been rejected by the Competent Authority by order, dated 24.07.1986, by declaring that she held 672.26 Sq.mts vacant land in excess of ceiling limit from out of 2000 Sq.yards. No part of Sy.No.129/43 forms part of Sy.No.128 and vice versa. There is no overlapping of any land in the said survey numbers over each other. In fact, no official took possession of the schedule three houses. The schedule three houses have nothing to do with the land alleged to have been allotted as surplus land covered by Sy.No.129/43 claimed by the respondents. The claim of the said Khayeemunnisa Begum is bogus. Neither her alleged vendor Smt Fatima Begum nor their predecessors were in possession of the schedule three houses or any part thereof. Neither Fatima Begum could have delivered possession of any part of schedule three houses to Smt Khayeemunnisa Begum nor she, in turn, could deliver possession to the Ceiling Authorities. Both of them have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the schedule three houses or any part thereof, which are the family properties of respondents 1 to 3. The lands said to have been held surplus by Khayeemunnisa Begum is absolutely incorrect. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that the schedule three houses form part of Sy.No.129/43 corresponding to T.S.No.28/1/1, ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 14 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 Block-T, Ward-11 of Shaikpet village, cannot be sustained. The applicant has no right and title over the extent of the schedule three houses belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Similarly, any claim by any of the respondents inter se is also unsustainable. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be termed as land grabbers.
14. Respondent No.4, though served with notice, did not enter appearance before the Special Court.
15. As per Respondent No.6, Smt. Khayeemunnisa Begum is the owner of the property admeasuring 1672.26 Sq.mts, situated at Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal. Out of the said extent, 672.26 Sq.mts., was determined as surplus and the said Khayummunisa Begum surrendered the surplus land to the ULC authorities. Later, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.745, Revenue (UCL) Department, dated 06.8.1993 and allotted surplus land to various persons. As per the said G.O., land admeasuring 672.26 Sq.mts in Sy.No.129/43 of Shaikpet Village was allotted to respondent No.6. After allotment of the said land, panchanama was conducted on 20.09.1993 and the said land was handed over to Respondent No.6. It is denied that the Competent Authority wrongly demarcated the surplus land of Smt Khayeemunnisa Begum. The excess land of Khayeemunnisa Begum was allotted to respondent No.6, vide G.O.Ms.No.745, dated 06.08.1993, after survey and conducting panchanama and demarcating the land of Smt Khayeemunnissa Begum. Respondent No.6 also filed L.G.C.No.245/95 in respect of the land admeasuring 672.26 Sq.mts, which was allotted to it, and the same is pending, and a Commissioner was appointed in the said LGC to identify the land of ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 15 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 Khayeemunnissa Begum and land of Respondent No.6. It is further contended that the application which is pending before the Competent Authority is no way concerned with the land allotted to respondent No.6, which originally belonged to Smt. Khayeemunnissa Begum.
16. The case of respondent No.7 & 8 is that respondent No.7 purchased two pieces of land admeasuring 168 Square yards and 148 Square yards on 28.08.1993 and 30.08.1993 under Document Nos.3520/83 and 3566/93 respectively. Similarly, respondent No.8 purchased two pieces of land admeasuring 191.006 Square yards and 133 Square yards, under Document Nos.3490 and 3491 of 1993, dated 24.08.1993, respectively. Respondent Nos.7 & 8 purchased the above extents of land, from the land of Smt.Fatima Begum and after purchase, they submitted a representation to MCH for sub-division of the land, which was granted, vide permit No.457/7 of 1994, dated 23.04.1994. Subsequently, they applied to the MCH for permission for construction of their houses, which was finally accorded by the MCH under permit No.470/7, dated 11.07.1994. Accordingly, they constructed the houses and are in occupation of the same.
17. Respondent No.9, Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal specifically denied the claim of the applicant that his grandfather was the pattadar of 3 acres of land in T.S.No.28/1/1, Block-T, Ward-11 of Shaikpet village. Part of the application schedule property in an extent of 230 Sq.mts., was also the subject matter of L.G.C.No.245/95. This respondent No.9 filed additional counter in the said L.G.C.No.245/95 stating that land admeasuring 1920 ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 16 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 Sq.mts., in T.S.No.28/1 is Government land and that neither the applicant nor the remaining respondents have any right or claim over the said Government land. During the year 1985, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, made some corrections by deleting an extent of 865 Sq.mts., out of total extent of 1920 Sq.mts., in T.S.No.28/1 and created new sub-division, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/1 in respect of extent of 865 Sq.mts., and included it in Sy.No.129/43 and recorded in the name of Fathima Begum, who is the mother of the applicant. Further, after deleting the extent of 865 Sq.mts., out of 1920 Sq.mts., the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, gave a separate sub-division number, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/2 for the balance extent of 1055 Sq.mts., which is recorded as GVM road. Under Section 14 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the entries in the town survey records can only be corrected through a decree of the Civil Court, within three years, from the date of publication of the notification of Survey. The notification was published in the District Gazette Extraordinary No.13, dated 28.02.1997. Since no objections were received, the entries in the Town survey recorded became final. Therefore, the corrections made in respect of T.S.No.28/1, Block-T, Ward No.11 and creation of two sub-divisions i.e. T.S.No.28/1/1 and 28/1/2 for 865 Sq.mts and 1055 Sq.mts., respectively is not only unauthorized, but also lacks legal sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon. For making such unauthorized corrections, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, and some of the employees, were kept under suspension. Therefore, neither the applicant nor the unofficial respondents have any legal right and are entitled to the extent of 865 Sq.mts., in T.S.No.28/1. The ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 17 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 applicant and respondents 1 to 4, 7 & 8 are land grabbers to the said extent of the Government land and they are liable to be evicted from the said land.
18. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues and additional issue for determination.
(1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property?
(2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents in respect of the application schedule land is true, valid and binding on the applicant?
(3) Whether the respondents have perfected title to the application schedule land by adverse possession?
(4) Whether the respondents can be treated as land grabbers in respect of the application schedule land under the provisions of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982?
(5) To what relief?
Additional Issue, dated 16.04.2002:
"Whether the extent of 865 Sq.mts land in T.S.No.28/1/1 is part of G.V.M. road as claimed by respondent No.9 and belongs to the Government?
19. On behalf of the applicant, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and one Khaja Mohinuddin was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.70 were marked. On behalf of respondents, the respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1, respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.4, the MRO, Shaikpet Mandal, was examined as R.W.3, respondent No.4 was examined as R.W.5, the Superintendent, ULC, was examined as R.W.6, Deputy Collector, Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, was examined as R.W.7, Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, was examined as R.W.8 and Exs.B.1 to B.74 were marked. Exs.C.1 to C.3 were marked through Court. Through R.W.6 (Superintendent, ULC), Exs.X.1 to X.26 were marked.
20. The Special Court, after adverting to the pleadings of the respective parties and elaborately discussing the entire evidence on ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 18 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 record and after discussing various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the subject LGC vide impugned order, dated 25.10.2010, holding that the applicant presently does not hold any title to the application schedule land; that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not proved their rival title set up in respect of land claimed by them and that the rival title set up by them is not true, valid and binding on the applicant and that they have no title over the land, which they are in occupation nor they have established their right over the said land by adverse possession; that no specific orders need be passed in respect of respondent No.5, who is only a proforma party; that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are also proforma parties and the applicant is not seeking any relief against them; that as regards the claim of respondent No.9, the application schedule land belongs to Government and it is open to the Government to take further action to remove any occupation from its land through legal process. On the additional issue, it was held that T.S.No.28/1/1 is part of GVM Road as claimed by respondent No.9.
21. In the instant case, as regards the case of applicant, the applicant contended that his grandfather-late Mohd.Asadullah was the original pattadar of three (3) acres of land in old Sy.No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313) corresponding to T.S.Nos.26 and 28/1/1 of Shaikpet Village and relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of pahani in respect of Sy.No.129/43 of an extent of three (3) acres of land in the name of his grandfather, Ex.A.2-Xerox copy of TSLR showing Sy.No.129/43 showing the name of his grandfather, Ex.C.1-sketch of ROM and Ex.C.2-True extract of TSLR. The applicant also ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 19 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 contended that Ex.B.33-Certified copy of judgment in LGC No.73/1991 on the file of the Special Court and Ex.B.38-certified copy of sale deed executed by Fathima Begum in favour of Khaja Kalimullah and two others, which are marked on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, reflects that the grandfather of the applicant had gifted the land belonging to him to his mother. It is also the case of the applicant that Town Survey No.28/1 was subdivided as 28/1/1 and 28/1/2 by the then Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records showing the extents as 865 Sq.mts and 1055 Sq.mts. The respondent No.9 questioned the sub-division contending that the Deputy Director has no authority to sub-divide Town Survey number, any defect in the survey recorded in town survey can only be rectified by a competent civil Court within a period of three years, the said procedure has not been followed by the Government and that the correction of Town Survey has been carried out under Section 87 of A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and not under Survey and Boundaries Act. Per contra, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that no proof was forthcoming to establish that the grandfather of the applicant was the original allottee of three (3) acres of land stated above. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also objected the claim of the applicant that the mother of the applicant succeeded the property. In view of the mandate given under Section 14 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the entries in the town survey records can only be corrected through a decree of the Civil Court, within three years, from the date of publication of the notification of Survey. The notification was published in the District Gazette Extraordinary No.13, dated 28.02.1997 and Since no objections were received, ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 20 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 the entries in the Town survey recorded became final. Therefore, the corrections made in respect of T.S.No.28/1, Block-T, Ward No.11 and creation of two sub-divisions i.e. T.S.No.28/1/1 and 28/1/2 for 865 Sq.mts and 1055 Sq.mts., respectively, without there being any decree from civil Court are not in consonance with the aforesaid provision of law and those corrections have no legal sanctity and are legally unsustainable. The Special Court, after elaborately discussing the evidence on record on the said aspect in consonance with the relevant provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and Survey and Boundaries Act and after referring to several decisions of this Court, held that the action of the Deputy Director in making amendments to the total area of Sy.No.129/43 and sub-dividing T.S.No.28 into 28/1/1 and 28/1/2 do not seem to be in order and that what is not done legally will not be treated as having legal sanction and therefore, has to be treated as illegal and that the entries made by the Deputy Director suffer from lack of legal sanction and are therefore, patently illegal and ultimately concluded that the applicant presently does not hold any title to the application schedule land.
22. It is the case of the applicant that his grandfather was the owner of three (3) acres of land in T.S.No.No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313) corresponding to T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1 situated at Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal. After his demise, the mother of the applicant by name Fatima Begum got her name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said land. However, the applicant could not establish that the land in T.S.No.129/43 is three (3) acres. As per the oral and documentary ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 21 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 evidence on record, on ground, Acs.2.14 guntas is only available and it was recorded in the revenue records. There is report of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District marked as Ex.C.3 in which, he recorded a categorical finding which reads as follows:
"After enlarging the revision book extract it is observed that the extent of Sy.No.129/43 is only Ac.2-14 Gts against the recorded area of Ac.2-30 Gts. The variation is due to the fact that there is no tippon available for this Sy.No.129/43. Thus it records that only a rough sub-division work was conducted at the time of formation this Sy.No.129/43. After excluding the area excluded road the area of Sy.No.129/43 is covering to be Ac.2-14 Gts."
There is yet another aspect. Though in Ex.A.51-Khasra Pahani filed by the applicant, the name of the grandfather of the applicant was shown as pattedar to an extent of three (3) acres of land in column Nos.13 & 14, but the year of the said Khasra Pahani was not mentioned. Further, a perusal of Ex.A.29-Wasool Baki Register for 1349 Fasli filed by the applicant reveals that in Col.No.21, an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas was shown. So, what was shown as three (3) acres prior to preparation of Wasool Baki Register under Survey No.129/43, was revised to Acs.2.30 guntas. Further, Ex.A.29-Wasool Baki for Fasli 1349 is much prior to the date of Ex.A.51-Khasra Pahani. The revised extent of land in Sy.No.129/43 shown in Ex.A.29-Wasool Baki Register is not reflected in the much later document, i.e., Ex.A.51-Khasra Pahani. There is no legally acceptable evidence that the grandfather of the applicant was possessing three acres (3) of land and this piece of evidence demolishes the case of the applicant. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Special Court that non- reflection of the revised extent of land in Sy.No.129/43 in a much ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 22 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 later document viz., Ex.A.51-Khasra Pahani creates a doubt with regard to the genuineness of Ex.A.51, cannot be faulted. Further, the extent of Acs.2.30 guntas of land mentioned in Ex.A.29-Wasool Baki Register correlates to the deposition of C.W.2-Deputy Director who deposed that the recorded area in Sy.No.129/43 is Acs.2.30 guntas. Under these circumstances, the Special Court rightly held that there is adequate evidence to show that the grandfather of the applicant was the owner of an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.129/43, but not three (3) acres of land.
23. As regards the case of respondent Nos.1 to 3, they claim title to the land through Exs.B.1, B.4 and B.6 sale deeds. They contend that these lands were obtained by their predecessors in title through registered sale deeds and that neither Fatima Begum nor Khayeemunnisa Begum have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the schedule three houses or any part thereof, which are the family properties of respondents 1 to 3 and that the applicant has no right and title over the extent of the schedule three houses belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is also their case that they acquired title to the application schedule property by way of adverse possession. As many as 74 documents were marked on their behalf. The Special Court, after elaborately discussing the contentions and the evidence on record, held that under the guise of Sy.No.128, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have purchased land in T.S.Nos.28/1/2 and 28/1/1 and that they have purchased lands from the owners who do not have title to the said land. The Special Court also recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 themselves were not sure of their claim to ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 23 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 the title, i.e., either through sale deeds or through adverse possession and that there is a lot of doubt about their own claim to the title of land and therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have neither proved their title to the land through purchase nor through adverse possession and therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have failed to prove rival title set up by them. In recording the said findings, the Special Court, in any event, cannot be said to have erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the said finding.
24. As regards the claim of the Government, the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, who was examined as R.W.3 and the documents on record reveal that the entire land measuring 1,920 square meters in T.S.No.28/1 is Government land and is recorded as GVM Road. During the year 1985, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records made some corrections by deleting an extent of 865 square meters out of 1920 square meters in T.S.No.28/1 and created new sub-division, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/1 and included the said 865 square meters of land in Sy.No.129/43 and recorded the name of Fathima Begum, who is the mother of the applicant. After deleting the said 865 square meters out of 1920 square metres, the then Deputy Director created another separate division, i.e., T.S.No.28/1/2 for the balance extent of 1,055 square meters and recorded the same as GVM Road. The said act of the then Deputy Director was not only unauthorized, but also lacks legal sanctity. For making such unauthorized corrections, the then Deputy Director and some of ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 24 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 the employees of his office were kept under suspension pending enquiry. The subject land is Government land and the applicant as well as the unofficial respondents have no manner of right, title or interest over the said Government land. This evidence of R.W.3 is corroborated with the evidence of R.W.7-Deputy Collector, Specila Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, who categorically deposed that that the then Deputy Director, who subdivided the land in T.S.No.28/1/1, has faced disciplinary action and is under suspension and that the sub-division made in T.S.No.28/1/1 is not correct. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Special Court that the application schedule land belongs to Government and it is open to the Government to take further action to remove any occupation from its land through legal process, cannot be faulted. It is also pertinent to state that respondent Nos.1 to 3 (writ petitioners in W.P.No.11067 of 2011), having analyzed the whole situation, did not contend before this Court that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. They sought a direction to the Government to act in accordance with law and forebear from dispossessing them.
25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Special Court, while reaching to its conclusions, neither refused to admit admissible and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned findings. Further, there is nothing on record to substantiate that Special Court has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violated the principles of natural justice. There is no manifest error apparent on the face of proceedings to issue a Writ of Certiorari as ARR,J & Dr.SAJ 25 W.P.Nos.5948 & 11067 of 2011 prayed for. Further, the Special Court neither acted without jurisdiction nor acted in excess of it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Both the writ petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
26. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J ____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 25th November, 2021 Bvv