Dr.T.Sarath Babu 2 Others vs The Tahsildar 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3761 Tel

       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

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

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

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

AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477

AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1172

2014 (4) ALD 757 (DB) ARR,J & Dr.SAJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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