Telangana High Court

Sri K.V.Ramanachari, vs Smt.Manamma, on 24 June, 2024

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

      THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI


     WRIT APEPAL No.1060 OF 2015 AND C.A.No.35 of 2015


COMMON JUDGMENT:

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

Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional

Advocate General for the State of Telangana, appears for

appellant in C.A.No.35 of 2015 and respondent No.4 in

W.A.No.1060 of 2015.

Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. Setty Raviteja, learned counsel, appears for

respondent Nos.1 and 3 in W.A.No.1060 of 2015 and

C.A.No.35 of 2015.

Mr. K. Sai Teja, learned counsel representing

Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel, appears for respondent

No.2 in W.A.No.1060 of 2015 and C.A.No.35 of 2015.

2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order,

dated 30.01.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

W.P.No.28857 of 2014. The Contempt Appeal is filed

challenging the order, dated 03.12.2015, passed by the

learned Single Judge in C.C.No.1043 of 2015.

3. Brief facts:

Unofficial respondents made an application, dated

27.08.2014, for grant of permission for construction of a house

in a Plot bearing No.26/B admeasuring 3½ guntas in

Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288, with a copy of sale deed of 1966 along

with a copy of layout LP 117/62 and a copy of the plan. The

said application was rejected by order in File No.G2/255/14,

dated 08.09.2014. Writ Petition is filed challenging the

rejection order.

3.1 As per Municipal Corporation, the plot claimed is part of

open space left for public purpose, admeasuring Ac.1.00

guntas as per TP 11/70 and Corporation raised basement in

Ac.1.00 guntas and fixed sign boards. Corporation claims

entire area in Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288 is developed with

constructed houses as per TP 11/70 and there is no plot C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

bearing No.26/B. Earlier, a Civil Suit was filed by

predecessors in title for declaration of land in Sy.No.1257 and

the said suit was dismissed. The application for grant of

permission for construction of house was rejected. In LP

117/62, Plot No.26/B is shown, it is in TP 11/70, Plot

No.26/B is not shown, sale deed pertains to the year 1966.

3.2 Per contra the defense set up is one Mr. Venkatachary,

father of unofficial respondents, purchased plot admeasuring

3½ guntas forms part of Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288 and 1307 on

05.01.1966 from Church of South India Trust Association,

Karimnagar, by way of registered sale deed, Document

No.111/1966, Book No.111/1966, Book 1 Volume 90, Page

302, on 27.01.1966. An application by unofficial respondents

along with others was made for assertion of plots and the

Mandal Surveyor issued a notice on 25.03.2014 to Corporation

for a survey to be conducted on 28.03.2014 at 11:30 a.m.

None appeared on behalf of Corporation at the time of survey,

panchanama was prepared by authorities and Plot No.26/B

was measured and identified.

C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate

General appearing on behalf of Corporation that there is no

mention of any survey number nor area in the sale deed

annexed (which is in Urdu language, a copy of translated

version in English is annexed). It is submitted that as per

LP 117/62, Plot No.26/B does not mention kuntakatta as one

of its boundary. It is further submitted that as per the master

plan 11/70 showing the revised layout of the christian's colony

in LP 117/62, no plot No.26/B is shown. It is also submitted

that a suit was filed by the predecessors in title of the vendor

of the unofficial respondents before the Senior Civil Judge, at

Karimnagar, for declaration of land admeasuring

Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.1257 vide O.S.No.72 of 1997 and that

in the said suit, it was observed that entire extent of land of

Ac.1.00 guntas was for public purpose. It is urged that layout

plan pertains to the year 1962 and that sale deed pertains to

1966 and the TP is of 1970 and that in the suit filed in the

year 1993, it is stated that the area is left for park. It is

pointed out that Corporation is in possession of the plot since C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

1970 and is meant for park as per TP 11/70. Learned counsel

has supported the rejection of application submitted by the

unofficial respondents. It is lastly submitted that the learned

Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of writ petition

and has granted compensation without there being any prayer.

The learned Additional Advocate General in his reply has

submitted that the reliance placed on the judgments are not

applicable to the facts of the case. Learned Additional

Advocate General has relied on the judgment of a learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.22954 of 2003 for the proposition that

unofficial respondents have to establish possession and title of

the land to the satisfaction of the authorities.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 3 that for

acquiring a parcel of land, acquisition proceedings are to be

initiated and no such proceedings have been issued. It is

further submitted that master plan TP 11/70 pertains to the

year 1970 and the sale deed of unofficial respondents is of the

year 1966 and that it is merely stated that the said subject C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

land is in the master plan as public space (claimed as park

area by Corporation). It is also submitted that a survey was

conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and none represented the

Corporation at the time of survey in spite of notice. It is

pointed out that Plot No.26/B was identified and panchanama

was conducted and the Corporation should abide by the

survey report. It is lastly submitted that the rejection is bad

and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ

petition by directing the Corporation to acquire the land owned

by unofficial respondents for open space/park by following

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and

3 relied upon the following Apex Court judgments for the

proposition(s) that no person can be deprived of their valuable

right to property without payment of compensation and for the

proposition that the owners of the plots/land whose plots/land

being earmarked for open space as per town plan, master plan C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

or zonal plan should be given an opportunity of hearing as

they would be affected parties:

1. PT. Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by LRs. vs.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1,

2. M.Naga Venkata Lakshmi vs. Visakhapatnam

Municipal Corporation and another 2,

3. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure

Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others 3 and

4. Real Estate Agencies vs. State of Goa and

others 4.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

has adopted the arguments of learned Senior Counsel and has

submitted that documents pertaining to the suit 1993 were

not part of the material papers of the writ petition and were

not part of the record before the learned Single Judge. It is

further submitted that unofficial respondents are entitled for

(1995) 1 SCC 47

(2007) 8 SCC 748

(2007) 8 SCC 705

(2012) 12 SCC 170 C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

compensation as held by Apex Court in a catena of judgments

and that the denial of permission was bad.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

8. Unofficial respondents submitted a written application,

dated 27.08.2014, to Commissioner for grant of permission for

construction of a house in a plot of 3½ guntas in Plot No.26/B

of Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288 without a proforma application by

enclosing copy of sale deed of 1966, copy of layout 117/62,

copy of plan and allotment list made by Church of South

India. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar

rejected the application by order, dated 08.09.2014. The

operative portion of the order of the Commissioner is as

follows:

"...The Municipal Corporation has raised the basement around the stick area about 20 years back and there are sign boards fixed by the Municipal Corporation. Even as per the layout plan 117/62 the entire said 1.00 Acre area including plot claimed by you is shown as open space left for public purpose. In original layout plan 117/62 there is no such plot C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

bearing No. 26/B is existing. The documents enclosed by you are all suspicious and you are not in possession of any piece of plot as claimed by you.

The plot claimed by you along with other adjoining area has been in possession of Municipality since 1970 in which year T.P.11/70 was adopted by the Municipality. Shaik Zunaid, Abdul Raheem and others claimed the said 1.00 Acre area as part of land in Sy No. 1255 & 1257. Shaik Zunaid and his children also filed a suit in OS No. 263/93 on the file District Munsiff and claiming the said entire area in Sy No.1255 against Municipality and the said suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently a writ petition 375/97 has been filed by son of Shaik Zunaid namely Shaik Abdul Raheem in respect of 14 Guntas of land in Sy No. 1255 seeking direction to declare the action of Municipal Council, Karimnagar to take possession of the same as illegal. The said writ petition No. 375/97 has been dismissed on 23-1- 1997. One Shaik Sajida also claimed 18 Guntas of land in Sy No. 1257 covered under said open place of 1 Acre and filed a WP No. 704/97 in the Hon'ble High Court of AP against the Municipality claiming the said land and the said writ petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn in 22-1-1997. Subsequently said Shaik Sajida filed a suit OS No.72/97. On the file of Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar in respect of said 18 Guntas claiming relief of recovery of possession of the same from the possession of the Municipality and also claimed title over the same. After detailed enquiry the suit of the Shaik Sajida has been dismissed on 28-1-2003 holding that the said 18 Guntas is part of open space in possession of C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

the Municipal Corporation as per the plan in TP 11/70 which the entire area actually set apart as a park area. Sy.No.1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1250, 1255, 1257 & 1258 is completely developed by constructing houses as per the layout plan TP 11/70 and there is no plot available as claimed by you except the public place in possession of the Municipal Corporation..."

filed by the office of learned Additional Advocate General as

additional material papers along with the permission petition

and the affidavit of Commissioner, Municipal Council, Siddipet

vide W.A.M.P.No.2991 of 2015. In the said exhibit, there

exists Plot No.26/B bounded by Plot No.26/C on one side,

roads on two sides and open on the other side. If we correlate

the boundaries by taking plot No.26/C as west side, then the

boundaries mentioned in the sale deed match. A vast portion

of land is not plotted in LP 117/62 on one side. The open

space referred in the notice of the Commissioner, dated

08.09.2014 and as submitted by the learned Additional

Advocate General is at a faraway place from Plot No.26/B in

the said exhibit i.e., LP 117/62, the said open space is C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

surrounded by road on all four sides on one side adjacent to

the road are Plot Nos.1 to 5 and adjacent to the other side road

are Plot Nos.11 to 15 and Plot Nos.6 and 7 are to the third side

and to the fourth side is a road leading to Malkapur Village (in

clock wise direction). Thus, on a perusal of the exhibit, it goes

without saying that Plot bearing No.26/B does exist in LP

117/62 and the open space said to be earmarked is nowhere

near to the Plot No.26/B. The submissions canvassed on

behalf of Corporation can only be rejected, on a simple and

plain perusal of LP 117/62. In revised layout plan of 117/62,

there is no plot bearing No.26/B, but it is also relevant to note

that there is no area earmarked as park area in the said LP

117/62.

10. A keen perusal of the sale deed of 1966 in Urdu language

annexed as part of material papers filed in W.A.M.P.No.2991 of

2015 reveals the presence of numericals 3½, 26/B, 26/C,

87/50 and 4.40 in the body of the sale deed. The sale deed

bears the seal of Munsif Magistrate Court, Karimnagar. A bare

reading of the English version of the sale deed makes it clear C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

that land admeasuring 3½ guntas of Plot No.26/B bounded by

Plot No.26/C sold for consideration of Rs.87.50/-, transfer

duty of Rs.4.40/-. The contention advanced that area is not

mentioned in the sale deed is not a valid contention. Though a

submission was made with regard to survey number not being

mentioned, the fact that the land belonged to the Church is

not denied. The fact that Plot No.26/B is a part and parcel of

Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288 is suffice, the same is evident from the

record.

11. Judgment in O.S.No.72 of 1997 (passed by Senior Civil

Judge, at Karimnagar, on 28.01.2003) is relied upon by the

learned Additional Advocate General to buttress the contention

that an area of Ac.1.00 guntas earmarked as open space (in LP

117/62) is in the possession of Municipality and the same is

park area. The trial Court, while dealing with issue No.1 in

O.S.No.72 of 1997, recorded as follows:

"...The point here is whether the land owners within Karimnagar had sold their lands by following T. P. No. 11/70 or not and its observance by the Municipality there is clear C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

evidence on behalf of the defendant Municipality. DW-1 deposed as follows:-

T. P. No. 11/70 is comprehensive town plan proposed by Director town and country planning, Hyderabad for development of town. The Municipal council vide its a resolution No. 160 dated 31-8-1970 approved and adopted the said plan and the same is being implemented by Ex. B-2 is the Town Plan No.11/70. Ex. B-3 is the copy of the resolution dated 31-8-1970 adopting the T.P. No. 11/70. It is to be observed at this juncture when T.P.No.11/70 was prepared by Director Town Planning and country planning Hyderabad it was approved by the Municipality Karimnagar and later on it was followed by the land owners..."

12. It is stated in the written statement filed in O.S.No.72 of

1997 (as recorded in the judgment) that plaintiff in the suit is

claiming Ac.0.18 guntas of land in Sy.No.1257, marked as

open place as per T.P.No.11/70, which is situated in

Sy.Nos.1255, 1257 and 1258 and the same is in possession of

Municipality since 1970. It is also recorded in the judgment

that "... the extent of Ac.1.00 gts., of land comprising in

Sy.Nos.1255, 1257 and 1258 was already left out for park

site. ..." The averment in the written statement in O.S.No.72 C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

of 1997 clearly demonstrates the fact that open place as per TP

11/70 pertains to Sy.Nos.1255, 1257 and 1258, but not

Sy.No.1285 to 1288 as canvassed and submitted on the basis

of observations and statements recorded in judgment in

O.S.No.72 of 1997 by the learned Additional Advocate General,

Corporation is in possession of open place from the years

1970, TP 11/70 is a plan prepared by Municipality and

accepted for the entire Karimnagar area from 1970. It is also

pertinent to note that in the material papers annexed at page

No.40 of Writ Appeal, a part of Master Plan showing the

revised layout LP 117/62 (of year 1970), Plot Nos.26/B and

26/C which were noticed in the material document at page

No.84 prior to Master Plan in the revised layout LP 117/62 are

not seen, but in the layout there is no area earmarked as Park

as canvassed in place of Plot Nos.26/B and 26/C. This can be

only for the reason of TP 11/70 which is of the year 1970, but

the plot is purchased in 1966 much prior to TP 11/70 which is

Master Plan adopted in 1970.

C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

13. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that plot in

question i.e., Plot No.26/B was identified and demarcated by

Mandal Surveyor in LP 117/62 (obtained by Church of South

India Trust Association, Karimnagar). Ex.P-5 is the

panchanamma, dated 28.03.2014. A Notice of survey was

given to the Corporation, but none represented the

Corporation. Therefore, the survey conducted cannot be

brushed aside in view of the identification and demarcation of

Plot No.26/B by Mandal Surveyor.

14. Learned Additional Advocate General has invited our

attention to the judgment in O.S.No.72 of 1997 to advance and

draw support for buttressing and validating the claim that the

open space is earmarked for park area. It is evident that

unofficial respondents have sought permission for

construction in Plot No.26/B of Sy.Nos.1285 to 1288. The

submissions made by placing reliance on the judgment in

O.S.No.72 of 1997, exhibit LP 117/62 and TP 11/70 do not

inspire confidence of this Court to approve the contentions of

Corporation.

C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

15. Learned Single Judge, after an elaborate discussion of

the provisions pertaining to A.P. (Telangana Area) District

Municipalities Act, 1956, as repealed by A.P. Municipalities

Act, 1965, the A.P. Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970,

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965,

held as follows:

"19. In this regard it is pertinent to point out in 1962 when L.P.No.117/1962 was sanctioned the applicable law was AP (Telangana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956.

20. Sec.244 of the said Act , in so far it is relevant, provided as under:

"Sec.244. Preparation of Master plan, town development plan and lay outs. (1) (a) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed within the limits of the Municipality.

(b) the Committee may for the purposes of clause (a) arrange to carry out the survey of the area within the limits of the Municipality and of the land contiguous or adjacent thereto and shall submit to the Government a report of the survey together with the Master Plan indicating the manner in which the area within the limits of the Municipality and the land contiguous or adjacent thereto shall be used and the stages by which the Master Plan shall be carried.

C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

(c) the Master Plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matters as may be deemed necessary to illustrate the proposals, and in particular:

(i) define the present use of every piece of land within the limits of the Municipality and in the land contiguous or adjacent thereto;

(ii) define the sites of the proposed roads, public and other open spaces or allocate areas of land for use for agricultural, residential, industrial or other purposes of any class specified in the plan;

(iii) designate the land subject to compulsory acquisition under the powers in that behalf conferred by this Act or any other law for the time being in force.

(d) the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette declare any area within the limits of the Municipality to be a Master Plan area and shall sanction in the prescribed manner a Master Plan thereto.

(2) Till such time as a Master Plan is sanctioned under clause (d) of sub-section (1) the Government may notify any area within or without the limit of a Municipality as an area in which no building to be erected or re-erected except in accordance with the piecemeal Town Development Plan, or a layout sanctioned by the Government in the manner C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

prescribed. Such Town Development Plan or layout shall, subject to minor alteration be incorporated in the Master Plan.

(3) No report shall be made under clause (b) of subsection (1) in respect of land falling outside the limits of a Municipality and no notification in respect thereof shall be issued under sub-section (2) without consulting the local authority within whose jurisdiction the land is situated."

21. Thus it is clear that as per Sec.244 (1) (c) (ii), the Master plan prepared pursuant to the said Act shall define the sites of the proposed roads, public and other open spaces. Thus under the said Act, provision for open spaces in layouts / Master plan was contemplated.

22. Sec.245 provides for notification of the Master plan or any Town Development Plan or a lay out sanctioned by the Government under Sec.244 in the Official Gazette.

23. Sec.248 of the said Act makes it mandatory for owners of land to comply with the layout after sanction.

24. Sec.251 of the said Act states:

"Sec.251. Immovable property required for the purpose of a Master plan, Town Development Plan or lay out shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, 1309 (Fasli)."

C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

25. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the plot in question, which was purchased by Venkatachari, the predecessor in title of petitioners on 27.1.1966, was at anytime acquired prior thereto by the then Karimnagar Municipality under this provision. Thus notwithstanding the showing of the said plot as 'open space' in L.P.No.117/1962 , title to the land continued to be with the Church of South India Trust Association and did not vest in the then Karimnagar Municipality. So the said trust could validly convey title to the said plot on 27.1.1966 under a regd. sale deed.

26. The AP (Telangana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956 was repealed by the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. After the said Act came into existence, the A.P. Municipalities (Lay out) Rules, 1970 were framed. In the said rules also, initially there was no provision for vesting of the open spaces in lay outs in the Municipality.

27. So even if the subject plot was shown in T.P.11/70 (sanctioned after the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 came into force), as falling in 'open space' and earmarked for public purpose, still the title of Venkatachari in the said plot did not get extinguished.

28. Only recently vide G.O.Ms.no.114 Municipal Administration and Urban development (M1) Department dt.14.3.2006, Rule 14 of the A.P. Municipalities (Lay out) Rules, 1970 was introduced by way of substitution which provided that "roads and open spaces such as parks and play grounds earmarked in accordance with the said Rules in a layout approved under Sec.185(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act,1965 shall stand C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

transferred free of cost and vest in the Municipal Council free from all encumbrances". This provision would have no retrospective effect as it is subordinate legislation and would only operate prospectively. In a judgment delivered on 20.1.2015 in W.P.No.13053 of 2014, this Court has held that the said Rule is only prospective and not retrospective.

29. In 2005, the Karimnagar Municipality became a Municipal Corporation governed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

30. Rule 10 A of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965 introduced vide G.O.Ms.no.229 Municipal Corporation and Urban Development dt.16.4.1994 provides that roads and open spaces such as parks and play grounds earmarked in accordance with the said Rules in a layout approved by it shall stand transferred free of cost to it and vest in the Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrances. Even this rule would have only prospective operation and cannot be retrospective. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13053 of 2014 that Rule 14 of A.P. Municipalities (Lay out) Rules, 1970, being subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective operation, clearly applies to Rule 10-A of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965 also. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot invoke either of these Rules to claim that the plot in question vested in it."

... ... ...

37. In the present case, it is not the case of 2nd respondent that at the time when TP.No.11/70 was framed, the petitioners was informed by the Karimnagar Municipality that his land was C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

shown as an open space and earmarked for a park. Thus the petitioners have been deprived of use of valuable property without payment of compensation. Assuming for sake of argument without conceding that the 2nd respondent is in possession of the property, title to the property did not vest in it by operation of any law. In fact no provision of any Act was cited by counsel for 2nd respondent under which it acquired title to the subject plot and the petitioners ceased to have title.

... ... ...

39. In view of law declared by the Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for open space/park and pay compensation to the petitioner. 40. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for acquisition of the entire land owned by the petitioners for 'open space'/park and pay compensation to the petitioners. The requisition for the said purpose should be sent by the second respondent to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the first respondent shall initiate the C J & JAK, J W.A.No.1060 of 2015 & C.A.No.35 of 2015

process for acquisition within a period of one month thereafter; and conclude the same within a period of three months."

16. TP 11/70 is a town plan proposed by the Director, Town

and Country Planning and approved by the Municipal Council

vide resolution No.160, dated 31.08.1970. There is no whisper

about any notice being issued to the unofficial respondents

about the plot of unofficial respondents being a part of

open space as per TP 11/70 (earmarked for park).

We do not find any merit in the contentions advanced and

submissions made. We do not agree with the contention that

the sale deed of 1966 cannot be relied upon, as the validity of

the document is not under challenge. The learned Single

Judge has, in fact, held that compensation be paid for