The District Collector Hyderabad ... vs Garlapalli Jagdeshwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 934 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



              WRIT APPEAL No.812 of 2017

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 18.04.2017 passed in W.P.No.25934 of 2010.

     The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was

preferred before this Court by the respondents/writ

petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar in

demolishing the compound wall and two rooms on the

subject property. The petitioners stated that their father

was the titleholder of the property to an extent of 3,764

square yards and a house bearing No.1-6-261/A/4 was

constructed. Before the learned Single Judge, it was stated

on an affidavit that proceedings were initiated under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short,

"the Act"), and a statement was filed under Section 6 of the

Act, declaration was submitted and after conducting a

detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer passed an order

declaring the land as non-surplus land and holding that

the petitioners are entitled to hold it. The State never

objected to the order passed under the Act. Later on, an

application was submitted for grant of permission for

construction of a residential complex. It was sanctioned

vide permit dated 01.01.2010. Subsequently, a revised

building plan proposal was also submitted by the

respondents/writ petitioners, which was also approved on

14.09.2010. The respondents/writ petitioners alleged that

the Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, visited the subject

premises and told the respondents/writ petitioners to stop

the construction and directed them to submit the

documents. All the documents were submitted to the

Tahsildar. However, without issuing any notice, the

Tahsildar, on 13.10.2010, came to the spot and

demolished part of the compound wall and two rooms

attached thereto. No order was passed in writing by the

Tahsildar and the respondents/writ petitioners, being

aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, came up before

this Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ

petition. The operative portion of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

"The point for consideration From the above contentions, the question that arises for consideration is "whether the respondents have any authority to interfere with the said land claimed by the petitioners?"

The consideration by the Court:

The petitioners have relied upon the sale deed dt. 09.12.1966, obtained by them, the GHMC Permit No.6/76, dt. 01.10.2010, the revised building plan, dt. 14.9.2010, apart from the proceedings, dt. 28.4.1993, of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, in support of their plea that the said land is a private land.

The order, dt. 28.4.1993, of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling was passed after considering the enquiry report, dt. 28.11.1992, of the Enquiry Officer under the Act stating that the said land is a private land. Once the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling declared the land to be private land and non-surplus land, merely on the basis of the entry in the Town Survey Land Record or revenue record classifying the said land as "G", the respondents cannot claim that it is Government land.

The Supreme Court of India has held that entries in the revenue records are not proof of title and such entries cannot be relied upon for establishing the title. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited-(2010) 5 SCC 382).

The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed as under:

"The sole basis of the Appellant to claim the land was on the strength of entries made in survey records showing that the schedule property was surveyed as T.S. No. 4/2, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram village having an area of 19214 sq. meters showing it as a gap area i.e. un- surveyed area as per the old survey records and

as such it could only be declared to be Government land as has been recorded in Column No. 20 of the T.S.L.R. Apart from the said revenue record and issuance of gazette notification as mentioned hereinabove, no other material document was filed by the Appellant to show that the said land belonged only to Government. It is trite that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied on for proof of establishing the title as such."

This legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) appearing for the respondents.

Thus, the respondents have no jurisdiction to remove the compound wall or rooms or hoarding erected by the petitioners in the said land, that too, without following any due process of law on the pretext that it is Government land. Such action is high handed, arbitrary and cannot be countenanced.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said land admeasuring 3,764 square yards situated at Daira Jamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles-14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioners' use of the said land in any manner. The third respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the petitioners.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous."

This Court has carefully gone through the order

passed by the learned Single Judge. In the considered

opinion of this Court, without passing any order against

the respondents/writ petitioners, the Tahsildar proceeded

ahead in the matter by demolishing the compound wall

and two rooms attached thereto. Such kind of action is

unheard of. There has to be an order for taking an action

against an individual and in the present case, the

Tahsildar, merely on the basis of his own assertion that the

land in question is a Government land, has demolished the

compound wall and two rooms. Nothing prevented the

Tahsildar to proceed ahead in accordance with law. The

learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and

against the said order, the present writ appeal has been

filed.

         The   learned   Senior           Counsel    Sri   Vedula

Venkataramana       appearing       for    the   respondents/writ

petitioners is fair enough in making a statement before this

Court that the State is always free to proceed ahead in

accordance with law in the case of a person who is an

encroacher or who is not having a title in respect of the

land.

Resultantly, the present writ appeal stands disposed

of with a modification and granting liberty to the State to

take action, in case they are claiming title over the land in

question, and proceed ahead in accordance with law.

The interim order granted by this Court is vacated.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

28.02.2022 vs