Akhther Begum vs The Prl. Secretary To Government
2022 Latest Caselaw 6964 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                   WRIT APPEAL No.853 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr.Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned

counsel for the appellant; Ms.B.L.Kanaka Valli, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and

Urban       Development            representing         respondent   No.1;

Mr.K.Siddharth Rao, learned Government Pleader for Home

Department representing respondent No.2; and

Mr.K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue representing respondent No.3.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

12.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1

of 2022 in W.P.No.43325 of 2022. Appellants have filed the

related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the

speaking order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the fifth

respondent i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Khairtabad Zone.

3. I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed for stay of the

aforesaid speaking order. By the speaking order, fifth

respondent had referred to orders passed by this Court on

09.04.2022 in W.P.(PIL).No.37 of 2022 as well as

W.P.No.18252 of 2012 and thereafter held that

Smt.Ghousia Sultana and other petitioners in

W.P.No.18252 of 2012 had failed to submit any document

showing that their lands are not part of the public

playground and that they are in possession of the same.

Accordingly, fifth respondent has directed Smt.Ghousia

Sultana and others to vacate and remove the illegal and

unauthorized structures made by them in Government /

public playground within 7 days. It may be mentioned that

appellants were petitioner Nos.16 & 17 in W.P.No.18252 of

2012.

4. Learned Single Judge noted the submissions made

by the appellants and thereafter declined to grant any

interim order holding as follows:

"According to the petitioners, they have been granted an extent of 300 square yards of land by Nizams and they have filed the

proceedings which are of the year 1951 and much prior to that. Except these two, no piece of paper has been filed before this Court. This Court cannot assume or presume that petitioners are in a longstanding possession and their possession cannot be disturbed particularly when their contention is that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession, lf the petitioners are in possession of the property from the last 70 years not even one piece of paper with regard to their possession has been placed before this Court.

Hence, the application of law laid down by this Court in Thummala Krishna Rao's case or his longstanding possession both cannot be considered by this Court, at this stage. In this matter, the cantonment has also not filed any counter.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned at this stage and grant any interim order.

In view of the same, the I.A. is dismissed."

5. In today's hearing also except the document at

Page Nos.54 & 55 of the paper book dated 04.05.1353

Fasli, learned counsel for the appellants could not produce

any other documents though learned counsel representing

the Cantonment Board - respondent No.7 have strongly

disputed the genuineness of the aforesaid document. As

per the aforesaid document, Hawaldar Shaik Mahboob was

informed that land admeasuring 300 sq. yds on which he

had erected temporary sheds was allotted to him by the

Cantonment Executive Officer as he was in possession of

the subject land since very long time and that he happened

to be an employee of Garrizon Battalion.

6. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the

appellants submit that Hawaldar Shaik Mahboob was the

grandfather of the second appellant and grand father-in-

law of the first appellant.

7. Be that as it may, on the basis of such an

ambiguous and vague certificate, learned Single Judge has

rightly not granted any stay. We do not find any good

reason to take a different view.

8. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 26.12.2022 mrm