Smt.Azra Shameem vs The Tahsildhar, Bahadurpura ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 507 Tel

     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.

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

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

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."

2001 SCC OnLine AP 397

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

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

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