Eo, The Secbad Cantonment Board, Secbad vs Khajka Abdul Samad, Secunderabad And 10 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2654 Tel

Telangana High Court

Eo, The Secbad Cantonment Board, Secbad vs Khajka Abdul Samad, Secunderabad And 10 ... on 11 July, 2024

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                AND

       THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI


              WRIT APPEAL Nos.933 AND 979 OF 2016


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. K. R. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

Cantonment Board for appellant in both the writ appeals.

Mr. Y. Chandra Sekhar, learned Senior Counsel

represents Mr. P. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the writ appeals.

Mr. T. Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the

impleaded respondents in both the writ appeals.

2. These intra court appeals are filed challenging the order,

dated 09.08.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.Nos.6890 and 6909 of 2012. Since the issue involved is

common in both the Writ Appeals, they are heard together

and a common judgment is being passed.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

3. Brief facts:

Dispute in these writ appeals pertains to land in Survey

No.285 (old) admeasuring an extent of Ac.21.04 guntas and

the same is not controverted. Respondent Nos.1 to 4

represented by their General Power of Attorney claim that they

are grandchildren of Khaja Jalal. It is averred that a

Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 AD)

was granted by Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land

admeasuring Ac.204.22 guntas in old survey Nos.253, 285,

288 and 290 of Khanojiguda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. It is further averred that subject land

was under occupation of Khaja Jalal and was recorded as Pan

Maqtha Inam lands, assessed for a revenue of Rs.744/- as per

orders dated 1st Behman 1315 Fasli.

3.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 rely on certain revenue

documents and claim that nature of land in old Sy.Nos.253

and 285 of Alwal Village as "Bapat Inam Maktha/Panmaktha

Inam". Respondent Nos.1 to 4 claim that revenue records C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

depict that this land was assigned new Sy.Nos.357 to 372,

424 and 426 and that Khaja Jalal was in possession of

property as Inamdar. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad

(for short 'RDO') issued Succession Certificate vide

proceedings in Case No.A5/4342/58, dated 04.07.1962,

allotted shares by granting succession certificate among the

inamdars.

3.2 It is averred that as per survey conducted during 1351

Fasli (1941 AD), the land situated in Sy.No.285 (old) to an

extent of Ac.167.22 gts was one compact block. A resurvey

was conducted in 1358 Fasli (1948 AD) and old Sy.No.285

was divided into 17 parts; out of these 17 parts, 16 parts were

assigned new survey numbers 357 to 372 for an extent of

Ac.146.16 gts. A portion of old Sy.No.285 to an extent

Ac.21.04 gts was not assigned any Survey Number.

3.3 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 aver that several representations

were made to the authorities to conduct a survey of left over

area in old Survey No.285 and assign a new survey number.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

First of such representations was made on 23.04.2007 and

later on 19.03.2008, 14.12.2009 and 29.08.2010. A writ

petition, namely W.P.No.27506 of 2007 was filed by appellant

herein claiming that appellant purchased Ac.28.29 guntas in

1939 from Nizam Government and an additional land of

Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.285 and a direction was sought

for survey and assignment of a new survey number. Writ

Petition was disposed of on 12.11.2009 with a direction to

conduct survey and assign a new survey number. Pursuant to

the directions, a survey was conducted vide proceedings

No.Rc.A1/1963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, by Assistant

Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records and

recommended for assignment of new survey No.606 for an

extent of Ac.21.04 guntas to the Commissioner, Survey

Settlement and Land Records. The Commissioner issued

proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, with

certain observations. The said proceedings in

Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, were challenged by

respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.6909 of 2012. By common C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

order, dated 09.08.2016, writ petition was allowed against

which W.A.No.979 of 2016 is filed.

3.4 An application was filed by GPA holder of respondent

Nos.1 to 4 before the Joint Collector (for short 'JC') for

allotment of new survey number to the un-surveyed/left

over/gap area in respect of old Sy.No.285 situated at

Khanojiguda Village. The JC in pursuance of the

Commissioner's assessment and observations held that the

land be treated as Government land, recording the land as

'Poramboke' under pattedar column and showing the entire

extent as pote kharab by assigning new Sy.No.606 to an

extent of Ac.21.04 gts in seriatim in village situated at

Khanojiguda, H/o. Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District with usual procedure. JC further directed the

Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to issue

supplementary sethwar after obtaining permission from

District Revenue Officer (for short 'DRO'). This order of JC was

challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.6890 of 2012 C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

and was allowed by learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.933

of 2016 is filed against the said order of learned Single Judge.

4. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant that vide letter, dated 08.03.1937,

appellant requested the Taluqdar of Bhagat District,

Hyderabad Deccan, for acquisition of Ac.32.72 guntas

situated between Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet for trenching

purposes. It is further submitted that it was informed by

letter, dated 06.07.1937, to the appellant that H.E.H. Nizam

Government issued orders to place the land at the disposal of

the appellant. It is also submitted that pursuant to a letter,

dated 04.08.1937, it was agreed to handover the said extent of

land on 18.08.1937.

4.1 It is contended that vide letter, dated 08.10.1937, the

President of Cantonment Board addressed a letter to the

Secretary to Hon'ble Resident, at Hyderabad to acquire a strip

of land admeasuring Ac.0.39 guntas for an approach road to

the trenching ground. It is further contended that vide letter, C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

dated 29.07.1938, the President, Cantonment Board,

Secunderabad intimated to the Secretary to the Hon'ble the

Resident, at Hyderabad that a cheque for H.S. Rs.8003.13

(Hali Sicca Rupees) being the compensation for the land

comprising Ac.28.29 guntas taken by Cantonment Authority

for transmission to Taluqdar, Bhagath District, Hyderabad,

same be acknowledged by a stamped receipt. It is also

contended that vide letter, dated 17.07.1940, from Secretary

to Hon'ble the Resident to the President, Cantonment Board,

that compensation payable for additional land admeasuring

0.39 Acres (17 guntas) acquired by the Board was fixed at

H.S. Rs.98.60 P. (Hali Sicca Rupees) and that a cheque be

transmitted to H.E.H. Government.

4.2 It is submitted that a letter, dated 15.03.1995, was

addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri (for

short 'MRO') to the appellant that the trenching ground was

demarcated by fixing boundaries and a sketch was prepared

and was sent for necessary action. It is further submitted that C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

a letter, dated 19.03.1998, was addressed by the

Secunderabad Cantonment Board to the District Collector to

assign a separate survey number and to mutate the name of

the Board in revenue records. It is also submitted that a

compound wall was constructed at a cost of Rs.18,35,000/- to

the trenching ground on the basis of a resolution, dated

31.01.2002, of the Board and the property was being guarded

by Army Jawans. It is submitted that a Writ Petition bearing

No.12509 of 2004 was filed by retired Lieutenant Colonel,

complaining pollution due to dumping of municipal waste and

the Board was directed to curtail pollution. It is further

submitted that a request was made to concerned authorities

to dump the municipal garbage at Jawaharnagar Village and

permission was accorded.

4.3 It is submitted that a suit bearing O.S.No.705 of 2006

was filed in the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions

Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, by father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

his brother for grant of permanent injunction restraining the

appellant and five others from interfering with the possession

and enjoyment of a parcel of land in old Sy.No.285 and that

the said suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs were

not in possession of the land.

4.4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant

that appellant filed writ petition No.27506 of 2007, that

appellant purchased Ac.28.29 guntas in 1939 from Nizam

Government and an additional land of Ac.0.17 guntas in

Survey No.285 seeking a direction for survey and assignment

of a new survey number and that the writ petition was

disposed of on 12.11.2009. It is further submitted that

pursuant to the directions of High Court, a report vide

proceedings No.Rc.A1/1963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, was

submitted by JC to Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and

Land Records requesting for assigning new survey No.606 for

an extent of Ac.21.04 guntas. It is also submitted that the

Commissioner issued proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

dated 27.09.2010, with certain observations. It is contended

that an application was made before the JC by the respondent

Nos.1 to 4 for allotment of new survey number to an extent of

Ac.21.04 gts and the JC basing on the Commissioner's

assessment and observations held that the land be treated as

Government land and directed Assistant Director Survey and

Land Records to issue supplementary sethwar after obtaining

permission from DRO.

4.5 It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for

appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that

the appellant has no right to subject land. It is further

submitted that the observations of the learned Single Judge

that the documents filed by appellant are dubious is outside

the purview of writ proceedings and that the prayer in the writ

petitions do not seek adjudication of title. It is also submitted

that the matter should have been remanded to civil Court. It

is urged that the learned Single Judge has traversed beyond

the scope of the prayer in the writ petition.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that a Munthakhab

No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 AD) was granted

by Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land admeasuring

Ac.204.22 guntas in old survey Nos.253, 285, 288 and 290 of

Khanojiguda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District to Khaja Jalal and that the said land is in their

possession. It is further submitted that a survey was

conducted in 1940 and later a re-survey was conducted in the

year 1948 and an extent of Ac.21.04 gts of land in Sy.No.285

was left un-surveyed. It is also submitted that representations

were made for survey of the left over land in Sy.No.285 (old). It

is submitted that as per sethwar of 1950, old Sy.No.285

corresponding to certain new survey numbers was an extent

of Ac.167.20 gts of land and during survey settlement

operation, old survey was correlated to 16 new survey

numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.357 to 372 covering an extent of

Ac.143.30 gts and that a deficit of Ac.23.30 gts. It is pointed C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

out that pursuant to direction of High Court, a survey was

conducted.

5.1 It is submitted that as per the statement in their

affidavit, Cantonment Board claims that land is between

Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet and not in Khanojiguda. It is

further submitted that no conveyance deed of panchanama is

placed on record and that there is no proposal for acquisition

and no documents on record to show that there was any such

proceedings for acquisition. It is also submitted that the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 are legal heirs and that occupation

rights certificates have been issued by the concerned

authorities.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for impleaded

respondents that they are the legal heirs, grand children of

Khaja Abdullah (Brother of Khaja Meeran) by placing reliance

on the Munthakhab granted. It is further submitted that once

inam is granted, the question of acquisition proceedings

doesn't arise. It is also submitted that the land acquisition C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

proceedings were in vogue and that there is no Section 4(1)

notification issued with respect to the land being claimed by

appellant. It is submitted that survey was conducted and the

subject parcel of land of Ac.21.04 gts was left un-surveyed. It

is lastly submitted that the impleaded respondents are lineal

descendents of the Munthakhab holders and are rightful

heirs.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

8. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are grandchildren of late Khaja

Jalal. A Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli

(1919 A.D.) was granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad in respect

of land admeasuring Ac.204.22 gts in old Sy.Nos.253, 285,

288 and 290 of Khanojiguda, H/o.Alwal village, Malkajgiri

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is pertinent to note that a

copy of the Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329

Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad was not

part of the record and it was presented to the Court only on C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

the request of the Court, when the Court listed the matter

under the caption "for further hearing".

9. On a perusal of both the Munthakhab(s) submitted, it is

imperative to note certain important facts. The relevant

extracts of the Munthakhabs presented by both learned

counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4and

impleaded respondents are as follows:

"1) The following entries are reflected in the Munthakhab submitted by the respondent Nos.1 to 4:

At column no.2 File No. of the secretariat 3/11 of 1329 Fasli

At column no.3 Muntakhab Tahasil No.1251

At column no.4 Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Khajajiguda, claimant Khaja Mia Khaja Ali Khaja Shareef Bawa Sahed Zafar Ali

At column no.13 Pan Makhta land Inam as Khaja Jalal situated at Khanajiguda Siwar Alwal

2) The following entries are reflected in the Munthakhab submitted by the impleaded respondents:

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

At column No.2 Dept. of Secretary File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli At column No.3 No.1251 Mumtakhab of Secretariat At column No.4 Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Khanajiguda Khaja Miran Khaja Ali Khaja Shareef Yawer Sahed Jafar Ali

At column No.13 Pan Makhta land known as Khaja Jalal situated at Nanajiguda, Siwar Alwal"

10. Be that as it may, in both the Munthakhabs, no survey

number is mentioned in any of the columns. When a survey

number is nowhere mentioned in the Munthakhab No.1251 in

File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam

of Hyderabad, it defies logic as to how the respondent Nos.1 to

4 and the impleaded respondents can claim the extent of land

of Ac.21.04gts in Sy.No.285(old).

11. It is important to note that in column No.14 of both the

Munthakhabs, the AREA/EXTENT is reflected as follows:

"Total Makhta land 104 Bighas, as reflected in the

Munthakhab of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

104 Bighas Maqhta land, as reflected in the Munthakhab of

impleaded respondents.

1 Bigha is equal to 0.62 Acre, 104 bighas would sum upto

Acres 64.48 gts in total, approximately the total extent of

land in the Munthakhab would be only to an extent of 65

acres and 8 guntas."

Munthakhab submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4:

File No. of the secretariat 3/11 of 2 No. of case preliminary & years 1329 Fasli Muntakhab Tahasil No.1251 3 No. of execution date & year

1. Khaja Osman S/o Khaja 4 Nature of the person whose name Ghouse R/o Khajajiguda, maash issued is grant i.e., claimant statement holder Father's

2. Khaja Mia Residence

3. Khaja Ali

4. Khaja Shareef

5. Bawa Sahed Zafar Ali No succession statement prior to its 5 If any succession statements has prepared and sanctioned sanctioned prior to it, then the name of that person is where name sanction has been sanctioned one after the other father's name and residence Banu B1 W/o Khaja Mia R/o 6 Name of the person whose name Khanajiguda the succession is granted Father's & Residence Statement holder : Khaja Meera wife 7 Relation of demised person Isfandar 1339 Fasli 8 Date of death of ancestor Date of execution of proclamation 9 Date of execution of advertisement 25th Bahaman 1341 Fasli Huzuri claimant 2nd Dai 1341 Fasli 10 Date of appearance of successor Khaja Meeran ancestor after demise 11 If any successor during the period appeared within three years of advertisement could not attend the reason of delay Retired 12 The successors appeared in time Pan Makhta land Inam as Khaja 13 Kind of Maash, Jagir Maqhta Inam Jalal situated at Khanajiguda Siwar daily C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

Alwal Total Makhta land 104 Bighas 14 Area Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand 15 Assessment Only)

- 16 Cash Rs.1000/- 17 Total 181 - 14 - 0 18 Deduction of pan or Government share if found 818 - 2 - 0 19 The Balance is released

- 20 Conditions grant

- 21 -

                   -                    22          -
                   -                    23          -

Munthakhab submitted by Impleaded Respondents

Dept. of Secretary File No.3/11 of 2 No. of original suit with year 1329 Fasli No.1251 Mumtakhab of Secretariat 3 File No. with date and

1. Khaja Osman S/o Khaja 4 Name of that person in whose name Ghouse R/o Nanajiguda land is granted (i.e., holder of

2. Khaja Miran statement) with father's name and

3. Khaja Ali residence

4. Khaja Shareef

5. Yawer Sahed Jafar Ali Prior to this no succession statement 5 If succession statement has been is either prepared or sanctioned sanctioned prior to this, then the name of said person is whose name one after succession is sanctioned, with father's name and residence Khaja Sharuddin and Khaja Hyder, 6 Name of such person whose name resident of Nanjiguda now succession is to be sanctioned, with Father's name and Residence They are statement holder late Khaja 7 Relation with present person or Ali's brother's sons past successor and further statement holder

25 Behman year 1341 are 9 Date of compliance of publication successorts of Mqtha Nanajiguda and appearance of objectioner comprehensively one citation is issued: compliance of publication/ citation, successors are included in file.

31 Ardibehisht year 1341 F 10 Date of appearance of successor

- 11 If any successor does not appear within publication period then the reason of delay It is released 12 Details of this fact that land is seized or released, if seized then from which date it is seized and for C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

what reasons Pan Makhta land known as Khaja 13 Kinds of land, jagir, maqtha, inam, Jalal situated at Nanajiguda, Siwar rusum mahmul etc. Alwal 104 Bighas Maqhta land 14 Extent Land 1000/- One Thousand Rupees 15 Revenue Quantum

- 16 Cash of land Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Rupees) 17 Total of column 15, 16 (Arabic figure) 18 Minus Pan (cess) or Govt. share, if decided to be in inam inquiry (Arabic figure) 19 Remaining released

- 20 Condition of grant

12. It is the specific claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that

they are the legal heirs of Khaja Jalal and Munthakhab

No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) was granted

by the Nizam of Hyderabad to Khaja Jalal. It is further their

case that as per various revenue records, the land situated in

Sy.No.285 (old), 253, 288 and 290 to an extent of Ac.204.22

gts of Khanojiguda, H/o. Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal is

"panmaktha" land belonging to "Maktha Khaja Jalal" and

Khaja Jalal was granted Munthakhab for the entire extent of

land and they were in possession and enjoyment of the said

land.

13. We fail to understand how the respondent Nos.1 to 4

claim an extent of Ac.204.22 gts of land in various survey C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

numbers including that of Sy.No.285(old) when it is clearly

evident from the Munthakhab that the area/extent of land

granted is only 104 bighas which comes to an extent of only

Ac.65.08 gts. Reliance is placed on the Munthakhab No.1251

in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the

Nizam of Hyderabad as the source of the title for the entire

extent of land by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the light of the

entry in Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli

(1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam, we are afraid the

contention cannot be sustained. The claim cannot be made

beyond what has been granted in the Munthakhab and has to

be restricted to the extent indicated in the grant.

14. JC-II of Ranga Reddy district in proceedings

No.Rc.A1/963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, submitted a report to

Commissioner wherein he stated as follows:

"Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.27506/2006 dated 12-11-2009, the Tahsildar Malkajgiri Mandal vide Lr.No.B762/2009-dated 30-01-2010 has requested to demarcate the suitlLand and to assign new Survey Number. It is submitted that the former Inspector of Survey of this office C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

has demarcated the subject land with the help of the relevant records of this office by using ETS instrument. He demarcated and picked up measurements for the un- surveyed left over / gap area and worked out the area as an extent of Ac.21-04 gts which is tallied to the ground. The former Assistant Director has also inspected the Land on 25-7-2008 and found that there is un-accounted and left over area which is a part and parcel of (old) Sy.No.285 of Alwal Village.

It is submitted that as per Sethwar for the year 1950 AD, the classification as per Col.No.(3) of above survey numbers is recorded as Panmaktha and as per Khatedar Col (4) the name of Sri.Khaja Jalal Sab is recorded.

It is submitted the Village map of 1358 Fasli of Alwal Village Malkajgiri Mandal is verified. As seen on the map there is un-surveyed/left over/gap area. This gap area is verified falling on the Village boundary in between Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal and Hashmathpet Village of Balanagar Mandal.

It is further submitted that I have inspected the land on 20-7-2010 along with the Cantonment Board related persons; Dy. Inspector of survey, Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, and the Tahsildar Malkajgiri Mandal were present. The said land has been protected by a compound wall and the board "Cantonment Land" is also shown. It is covered by debris, thick growth of shrub and dumped municipal waste. There are enough signs to show that the land had been used as a ground, for throwing debris. However there are multiple claims on the land, and several representations have been received.

It is further submitted that when both the Village maps i.e., Alwal for the year 1358 Fasli and Hashmathpet for the year 1328 Fasli are juxtaposed, it is seen that the Village boundary in C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

between Alwal and Hashmathpet are tallying. There is left over/un-Surveyed area which is falling within the Village Boundary of Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal This un-surveyed area needs to be assigned a new survey number 606 i.e., the last survey number of the village of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

I am submitting herewith the following Xerox copy of records of Khanojiguda H/o Malkajgiri Mandal for kind perusal.

1) Copy of Sethwar for the year 1950 for the subject land Sy.Nos mentioned in para (2) above.

2) Copy of WassolBaqui for the year 1354 Fasli in respect of Khata No.2 of old Sy.No.285.

3) Copy of village map Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal for the year 1358 Fasli & Copy of old Map of 1351 Fasli (Reprint).

4) Copy of Village Map Hashmathper Village Balanagar Mandal for the year 1328 Fasli.

5) Sketch of old Sy.No.285 along with ETS measurements picked up by the former Inspector of Survey.

6) Spot inspection report dated 25-7-2008 of the former Assistant Director Survey & Land Records.

Therefore, I request the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records A.P Hyderabad to kindly accord permission for assigning new Survey Number 606 to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khanojiguda, H/o Alwall Village Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District and communicate the orders and necessary directions to act on this issue".

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

15. Pursuant to proceedings in Rc.No.A1/963/2007, dated

07.08.2010, of JC-II addressed to the Commissioner, Survey

Settlement and Land Records, AP Hyderabad, to accord

permission for assigning New Sy.No.606 to an extent of

Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khanojiguda, H/o

Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and

communicate the orders and necessary direction to act on

the issue, the Commissioner vide proceedings in

Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, forwarded reply to

the District Collector, Ranga Reddy. In his proceedings, the

commissioner stated as follows:

"Permission was sought for assigning new Sy.No. to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khannbjiguda H/o Alwal. The proposal has been carefully examined it is clearly evident from the enquiry report of the Joint Collector dated 7- 8-2010 that the subject matter extent of Ac 21-04 gts was left un-surveyed during the last survey in the year 1940 for the obvious reason that it did not form part of the holding of any khatedar at that time. As such, it cannot be related to holdings in the old Sy.No.285 which were recognized and correlated to 16 new survey numbers as mentioned in the Joint Collectors report based on the entries in Wasool baqui. What follows is that the subject matter land is an un-assessed waste land C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

vested in Government, even if it were to be an Inam Village. There was no claim or objection from any quarter in this regard after re-survey for several decades, after the survey. An occupancy right, if any, arising from the Survey and Settlements done six decades back cannot be now enlarged to include a neighboring piece of un-surveyed land vested in Government. To sum up the subject matter land is to be necessarily treated as vested in the Government and the question of applicability of Sec.87 of the APTA (LR) Act, 1317Fasli does not arise in this case.

Subject to this clarity and the legal position you may take action as per the procedure to assign a new Survey number in seriatim in the Village in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The claims if any in respect of this land should be dealt with keeping in view of the about fact and legal position".

16. This proceedings of Commissioner, dated 27.09.2010, is

the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.6909 of 2012.

17. An application was filed by Khaja Ahmeduddin, S/o

Khaja Abdulla & 3 others represented by their GPA Holder

Sri Y. Yadav Rao, D.No.12-13-97, Tara Tycoon, Plot No.311,

3rd Floor, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-17, for allotment of new

survey number to the un-surveyed/left over/gap area in C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

respect of old Sy.No.285 situated at Khanojiguda, H/o Alwal

Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said

application, the petitioner submitted that ancestor namely

Khaja Jalal Saheb was inducted into possession of the land

covered by old Sy.Nos.285 of Khanojiguda, H/o Alwal Village

by grant of Muntakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of F.1329.

The Muntakhab was granted by the Nizam, which was

confirmed by the Hon'ble Committee Estate Hon'ble Raja

Rayan Maharaja Sri Kishan Prasad Bahadur KCIE HEH the

Nizam dated 30th Aban Fasli 1324. The total extent covered

by the old Sy.No.285 is admeasuring Ac.167-20 gts. After the

survey, the old Sy.No.285 was divided into several survey

numbers. The new survey numbers assigned to old Sy.No.285

are Sy.Nos.372, 371, 370, 369, 368, 359, 367, 366, 358, 365,

360 and 361. As per the village accounts and revenue records,

in the extents covered by new survey numbers, there is a

difference of Ac.57-05 gts.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

18. The JC in his order, dated 25.05.2011, held as follows:

"...The counsel for inamdar present. He argued the case. Sec. (14) of the inam Act has Civil Suit of declaratory nature. He argued that the inam issue with regard to Sy.Nos. 367 and 368 was dealt the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case to Joint Collector, who had passed the orders. He argued that the cantonment board in WP No. 17697/1989 the Chief Executive Officer of cantonment board claimed Sy.No.1 of Hashmathpet Village as their land. He further argued that he had applied for sketch and letter dated: 15-3-1995 of Mandal Revenue Officer Malkajgiri. The Mandal Revenue Officer Malkajgiri stated that connected file is not available. He argued that the Hon'ble High Court in 27506/2007 dt: 12-11-2009 asked the parties to agitate their claims before the competent authorities.

The original Sethwar, Wasool Baqui and original atiyath order to be produced before this court including the pahanics from 1950s. case posted to 25-3-2011.

On 25-3-2011 the counsels present. The counsel for Khaja Ahmeduddin submitted the copies of various orders and other document. The counsel for cantonment board sought time. The documents like Wasool Baqui. Classer Register, Sethwar were verified. Posted to 1-4-2011.

On 1-4-2011 the counsel for the cantonment board present. He argued the case and stated that the issue relates to only to allotting of New survey number. There is also Court direction relating to this.

Order:

On perusal of reports and records it is evident that the subject matter extent of Ac.21-04 gts was left un-surveyed during the last survey in the year 1940 for the obvious reasons that it did not form part of the holdings at that time. There are multiple claims on this land by the cantonment board and private parties. The Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land Records A.P. Hyderabad has already taken decision vide letter No.N1/5213/2010 dt: 27-9-2010 in the matter that Sec. 87 LR C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

Act 1317 Fasli is not applicable to the present case. Inams Act is also not applicable to un-surveyed land. Since rights of private parties are not recognized or recorded in respect of un-surveyed lands. Such ands are to treated as lands vested in Government. Further in pursuance of the Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land Records A.P. Hyderabad assessment and observations the land be treated as Government land duly recording the land as poramboke under pattedar colum and showing the entire extent as pote kharab by assigning new Sy. Number 606 to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts in seriatim in village situated at Khanojiguda H/o Alwal Village Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District with usual procedure.

In view of the above facts the Assistant Director Survey and Land Record is directed to issue Supplementary Sethwar accordingly after obtaining permission from the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District."

19. This order of JC, dated 25.05.2011, is the subject matter

of challenge before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6890 of

2012.

20. W.P.No.6890 of 2012 is filed with the following prayer:

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in letter No. Rc.No.A1/963/2007, dated 25.05.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to section 87 and 90 of Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1955 (herein after called as Act), 1317 fasali and consequentially set aside the proceedings in letter Rc.No.A1/963/2007, dated 25.05.2011 and direct the respondents to mutate the petitioners names as pattedars by C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

issuing supplementary Sethwar for S.No.606 of Khannojiguda, H/o Ac. 21.04 guntas and grant occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and issue pattadar pass books and title deed books".

21. W.P.No.6909 of 2012 is filed with the following prayer:

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in letter Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010 of the second respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to section 87 and 90 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) land Revenue Act, 1955 (herein after called as Act), 1317 fasli and consequently set aside the proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/10, dated 27.09.2010 and direct the respondents to enter the name of the petitioners as pattedars of newly assigned Sy.No.606 of Khannojiguda, H/o. Alwal, Malkajigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the extent of Ac.21.04 guntas".

22. Learned Single Judge by common order, dated

09.08.2016, allowed both the writ petitions filed by the

respondent Nos.1 to 4. The relevant portion of the order is as

follows:

"THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

39. The following points arise for consideration in the matter:

a) Whether the orders of 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010 dt.27-09-2010 addressed to the 3rd respondent and those of the 4th respondent in his proceedings Case No.A1/963/2007 dt.25-05-2011 are void in law?

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

b) Whether they are competent to declare that the unsurveyed extent of Ac.21.04 gts in old Sy.No.285 of Khanojiguda, h/o. Alwal village as Government land and to declare that provisions of AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 as well as the AP (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (in particular Section 87 thereof) have no application to the land?

c) Whether the petitioners or 8th respondent are entitled to any relief?

POINTS (a) & (b):

(i) FINDING OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 4 THAT SEC.87 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY IS ERRONEOUS

48. Section 86 of the AP (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli states:

"Sec.86. Preparation of Register:

(1) The Survey officer shall, at each settlement, prepare a separate register for each village showing the area and assessment of each number together with the name of the pattadar. This register and other records shall be prepared in accordance with the rules made by the Government by notification..."

49. Section 87 of AP (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli states:

"Section 87 - Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errors admitted by all parties and application for correction of name to he made within two years:

The Director of Settlements and on making over the settlement records to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted by the party concerned.

The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications made within two years after the introduction of the settlement, for the correction of any wrong entry of a pattadar's name in the C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

register referred to in the preceding section and if satisfied about the error whether such error has been made through negligence, fraud, or collusion shall correct the same, notwithstanding that the party concerned does not admit the error but no such application shall be entertained after two years, unless reasonable cause is shown to the said officer for the delay, and in such cases if any error is proved it shall not be corrected without obtaining the sanction of the Government."

50. Section 87-A provides for delegation of power of the Government under Section 87 of the Act to the 2nd respondent.

51. The above provisions provide for correction of clerical and other errors in settlement register maintained under Sec.86 and confer powers on the 2nd respondent to sanction such correction if request for correction is made by an applicant, before or after two years from the introduction of the settlement.

52. Since there is no dispute that the request of the family members of Khaja Jalal for allotting a new survey number to the unsurveyed extent of Ac.21.04 gts in old Sy. No.285 of Khanojiguda village was made long after the settlement/resurvey in 1350 Fasli, in the year 2007, the competent authority to sanction such correction is the 2nd respondent. That was why the Office of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.No.N1/2208/2008 dt.19-03-2008, after accepting that after the resurvey in 1940, still there is unsurveyed extent in old Sy. No.285 of Khanojiguda, directed that correction be sought by the family members of the petitioners (Khaja Naseeruddin) under Section 87 of the Act before the 6th respondent.

53. Having so directed the family members of the petitioners to approach the 6th respondent under Section 87 of the Act, it is inexplicable how the 2nd respondent in the proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010 dt.27-09-2010 changed his opinion and stated that the said provision of law does not apply.

54. In my opinion, the omission of the respondent Nos.1-6 in not surveying the land other than the land for which they had C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

assigned 16 Survey no.s in 1940 and in not allotting a Survey number to the said land at that time, clearly falls within the ambit of Sec.87 of the Act since it is admitted by all parties that it is true. This appears to be on account of negligence of the Survey officials in 1940. Therefore to that extent, it is not open to 2nd respondent to state that Sec.87 is not attracted.

... ...

61. The term "Pan Makhta" means a nominal amount fixed on the grant of Maqta to preserve the proprietary rights of the Government over the land granted. [See Glossary in the Book "Revenue Laws of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) by V.Rajaiah (October 2004 Edition)].

62. If it is Inam land, according to provisions of AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, all the inams vest in State as on 20th July, 1955. However, in case the inamdars or various types of persons mentioned in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act were in possession of the land as on 1-11-1973, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramender Reddy and Ors. v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District and Ors [1993 (2) A.W.R.84 (D.B.)] held that right to get occupancy rights is not co-related to the vesting of inams in the Government and that even though all the inams vested in State as on 20th July, 1955, in case the inamdars or various types of persons mentioned in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, who were in possession of the land as on 1-11-1973, they would be entitled to get occupancy rights under the Act. This view has also been followed in G.Venkat Ram Reddy v. Najeebunnissa [2005(5) ALD 156 (DB)]. Therefore the mere fact that the inam vested in the State as on 20th July, 1955 does not mean that rights, if any, of persons such as petitioners, get extinguished and the State becomes owner of the property.

63. It is settled law that the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 empowers the competent authority under Section 10 thereof to decide not only the nature and history of the land but also to determine who is entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land subject to appeal under Section 24 and further revision under Section 28. It is thus a complete code in itself. The 2nd C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

respondent and the 4th respondent are not competent authorities under the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 to decide whether the said land of Ac.21.04 gts in old Sy. No.285 of Khanojiguda village, h/o.Alwal which is now assigned new Sy.No.606 is inam land or not and whether the petitioners or somebody else is entitled to Occupancy Right Certificate under the provisions of the said Act. This legal position is not disputed by the Government Pleader for Revenue, State of Telangana who appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

(iv) SURVEY AFTER 2008 BY RESPONDENTS DOES NOT DESTROY RIGHTS, IF ANY, OF PETITIONERS

64. Also, any survey got done after 2008 by the respondent Nos.1-7 of the land in old Sy.No.285 of Khanojiguda does not result in the title to it, if any, of persons like petitioners vanishes and gets vested in the Government.

65. In Hyderabad Potteries Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad [2001 (3) A.L.D. 600], it has been held that the scheme of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (under which the survey after 2008 was done) makes it clear that survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. It held that there is no provision under the Act intending to make any detailed enquiries with regard to the right, title or interest of persons in the lands. This view received its affirmation in the hands of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1096 of 2001 against which the District Collector preferred S.L.P. and the same was dismissed. This is stated in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Prameela Modi [2005 (4) A.L.D. 105 (DB)].

66. Therefore it is not open to the 2nd respondent to state that even if this land in an inam village, it is unassessed waste land which vests in the Government or for the 4th respondent to state that the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 has no application to unsurveyed land. Neither of them has explained how land which is unsurveyed is waste land. These observations of 2nd and 4th respondent are not supported by any evidence, clearly without any jurisdiction and vitiate their respective orders.

67. Therefore points (a) and (b) are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

Point No.(c):-

68. It is the case of petitioners in the application dt.23-04-2007 filed by them before the 6th respondent under Section 87 of the Act that their great grandfather Khaja Jalal was inducted into possession of land covered by old Sy.No.285 of Khanojiguda by grant of Muntakhab granted by the Nizam, that the old Sy.No.285 comprised of Ac.157.20 gts and twelve new survey numbers for an extent of Ac.100.15 gts were assigned and for the balance Ac.57.05 gts, no survey numbers were assigned. They pleaded that they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the entire land of Ac.157.20 gts in Sy.No.285 for more than 100 years. They sought not only assignment of new survey number to the extent of Ac.57.05 gts but also registration of their names in the revenue records of the village.

69. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District (5th respondent) issued an inspection note dt.25-07-2008 (Ex.P3) stating that the land in old Sy.No.285 stands registered in the name of Khaja Jalal and that it is his patta land. On 27-11-2009, the 6th respondent issued copy of the inspection report stating that old Sy.No.285 consists of Ac.167.20 gts, that it is Pan Maktha land of Khaja Jalal on the basis of Wasool Baqui and that Ac.25.09 gts was the deficit area after taking into account the land for which new survey numbers 357 to 372 had been assigned. Subsequently, after survey, the gap area or unsurveyed area was found to be Ac.21.04 gts.

70. Since this land is prima facie inam land, it is open to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 for grant of an Occupancy Right Certificate and after obtaining the same, they can seek for mutation of their names in the revenue record by making an application in Form 6A prescribed under the AP Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971.

71. Coming to the claim of the 8th respondent Cantonment Board is concerned, the correspondence dt.29-06-1937, 06-07- 1937, 09-08-1937, 20-08-1937, 06-10-1937, 29-07-1938, 31- 12-1938, 17-07-1940 filed along with the counter affidavit suggest that an extent of Ac.32.72 gts between Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet was allegedly acquired by the then Nizam C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

Government and handed over to 8th respondent for trenching purposes. This area therefore cannot be within Khanojiguda and has to be outside it since it is alleged to be between Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet.

72. Secondly the letters dt.29-06-1937, 06-07-1937 and 09-08- 1937 appear to have been drafted on stationery printed in the year 1944. Prima facie they are dubious.

73. Thirdly, if any land was to be acquired for the benefit of the Cantonment Board, the provisions of Section 110 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 as amended and substituted by Act 24 of 1936 which is extracted below is not shown to have been followed.

"Section 110 - Acquisition of immovable property:

When there is any hindrance to the permanent or temporary acquisition upon payment of any land required by a (Subs. by Act 24 of 1936, S.69, for "Cantonment Authority".) [Board] for the purposes of this Act, the2[Subs. By the A.O.1937, FOR "l.g.") (Central Government) may, at the request of the (Subs. by Act 24 of 1936, S.69, for "Cantonment Authority".) [Board], (Subs., ibid., for "proceed to acquire it".) [procure the acquisition thereof] under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and on payment by the (Subs. by Act 24 of 1936, S.69, for "Cantonment Authority".) (Board) of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the proceedings, the land shall vest in the (Subs. by Act 24 of 1936, S.69, for "Cantonment Authority".) [Board]. No proceedings of acquisition of any land have been filed by the 8th respondent to prove that there was any such acquisition.

74. Also the boundaries of the extent of Ac.32.72 gts are not indicated anywhere. Most of the official correspondence during the regime of the Nizam was conducted in Urdu language and not in English language, but the above correspondence is in English language which also throws a doubt on the genuineness of the above documents.

75. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the prevailing currency at the time of the Nizam's Rule was Osmania Sikka but not Indian Rupees, but the proceeding dt.29-07-1938 and 17-07-1940 mention the currency as H.S.Rupees 8003-13-0. The said payment was allegedly made C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

by cheque, but no cheque number or name of the bank is mentioned. These circumstances throw any amount of doubt over the genuineness of the claim of the 8th respondent to the above land.

76. It is not disputed that counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of 8th respondent in W.P.No.12509 of 2004 (filed against it by one Lt.Col. (Retd.) N.K.Yadav) and an affidavit was filed by its Executive Officer A.S.Raja Gopal in W.P. No.17697 of 1989 (filed by M/s. Railway Employees ooperative Housing Society Limited) asserting that the trenching land is in Sy.No.1 of Hasmathpet village and not in Khanojiguda village.

77. This admission of the 8th respondent is fatal to its claim that the unsurveyed extent of Ac.21.04 gts in old Sy.No.285 of Khanojiguda is the land which was in its occupation and which was being used as a trenching ground.

78. Therefore, point (b) is answered holding that petitioners can approach the competent authority under AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 for grant of an Occupancy Right Certificate and after obtaining the same, they can seek for mutation of their names in the revenue record by making an application in Form 6A prescribed under the AP Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971. The claim of 8th respondent to the unsurveyed extent of Ac.21.04 gts in old Sy.No.285 of Khanojiguda (new.Sy.No.606), is rejected.

79. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed to the above extent; proceedings in letter Rc.No. N1/5213/2010 dt.27-09-2010 of 2nd respondent and proceedings in letter Rc.No.A1/963/2007 dt.25-05-2011 of 4th respondent except to the extent they held that Ac.21.04 gts. in old Sy.No.285 of Khnannojiguda should be given new Sy.No.606 are set aside; costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each shall be paid by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.8 to the petitioner."

23. It is well settled in law that in a summary proceeding

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the disputed C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

questions of fact cannot be adjudicated (see Rashid Wali Beg

vs. Farid Pindari1).

24. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the

letters dated 29.06.1937, 06.07.1937 and 09.08.1937 are

drafted on stationery printed in the year 1944 and held that

they are prima facie dubious. It has further been held that in

the proceedings dated 29.07.1938 and 17.07.1940, the

payment was made in Hali Sicca rupees for a sum of Rs.8003-

13-0. The learned Single Judge has further recorded a finding

that the aforesaid currency was not in existence. It is

pertinent to note that the aforesaid findings of fact could not

have been recorded in a summary proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The material has been placed

on record prima facie to indicate that currency, namely Hali

Sicca, existed at the relevant point of time.

25. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that

copy of Munthakhab was not produced before it. In the

(2022) 4 SCC 414 C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

absence of Munthakhab, namely the document of title, the

learned Single Judge erred in adjudicating the questions of

fact in summary proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 or their predecessors who were granted

Munthakhab have not filed any Appeal under Section 9 of the

Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. When a

re-survey was conducted in the year 1948, subject land of

Ac.21.04 guntas was not allotted any survey number. The

learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that after 60

years, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have submitted a

representation seeking survey to be conducted and for

allotment of new survey number. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge erred in

recording the findings of fact in a summary proceeding under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the

common order dated 09.08.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.6890 and

6909 of 2012 is set aside.

C J & JAK, J W.A.Nos.933 & 979 of 2016

26. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

parties are granted liberty to approach the civil Court, for

redressal of their grievance as disputed questions of fact

cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that

observations/findings recorded in this order have been

made/recorded only for the purposes of deciding the

controversy involved in this appeal and shall have no bearing

on the civil suit, which may be instituted by the parties.

27. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:11.07.2024 KH/PLP/KRR