L Asheervadham vs State Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1208 Tel

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

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

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

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.

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