1. Shyam Sundar Murthy v. unconstitutional and to issue a conseQuential direction to the 4th

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to remove the signboard illegally erected in premises bearing No.1-8-711, PIot No.2(P), Sy.No.59, Block - 1, Ward - 188 Sarvodaya Colony, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500020, forthwith, belonging to the petitioners, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SI{I JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY tt'ttl T' PL T ITION No. 8094pI202Q ORDER: This Writ Petition is llted to issuc a Writ of Mantlamu.s declaring the action of le'spondent No.4 in erecting a sign board in premises bearing No. l-8-711. Plot No.2(P), Sy.No.59, Block-1, Ward-188, Sarvodaya Colony, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, on the ground that the said land belongs to Govemment, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona[.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, leamed senior counsel appearing for petitioners, and learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing lor tlrc respondcnts.

3. The casc of the petitioncrs is thal originally, their lather was the owner of Plot No.2, adrr.reasuring 3 13.49 squale yards llt Sy.No.59, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, along with ground floor structure of a house constructed therein, having acquired the same under registered sale deecl bearing document No.897 of 1968, dated

25.03.1968; that after dcrnise of their father, the family members have entered into partition deed vidc registered document No.4179 of2013, datcd 24. 10.2013, whereunder the property admeasuring \ \ l L,\A. J t/P.No.8094 of 2020 120 square yards bearing No.1-8-7i l, Plot No 2(P), TS.No.59, BlockJ, Ward-188, Sarvodaya Colony, Chikkadpally (hereinafter leferred to as 'the subject propeft),') fell to the shares of the writ petitioneri; that the petitiorrers har,c obtainecl perrnission titr constructiort in the subject propefi),and the plan ri'as approvcd by the GHMC, vide permit dated 05.12.2014 lor construction of building consisting of ground r two floors. While the rnattcr stood thus, respondent No.4 has erectcd sign board in the subject property on 04.06.2020 without issuing a prio| noticc to the petitioners or serving any proceedings on thern. Aggrieved b1' the same, the l)resent Writ Petition is filed -1. l-earned senior counsel appearing lor petitic,nels subrnittcd that the f'ather of the petitioners and after his demisc. the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the subject propertv since the year 1968 i.e., from the date ofpurchase of the subject property by the father of the petitioners; that the subject prol)efiy which t'ell to the sharc of the petitioners in the partition and thcy demolished the old house standing in the subject propert) and obtained permission for construction of house with ground t- two floors. Learned senior counsel further submitted that at that point ol time, : -) I-NA, J ll'P.No-8091 of 2020 respondent No.4 erected a sign board in the subject properfy and no procedure whatsoever \.vas follo\\,ed by the Govemment and no notice has been issued to the petitioners prior to erection of such sign board, which is violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional.

4.1. Leamed senior counsel further submitted that respondent No.4 erected the sign board in the subject propefty only on the basis of the entries made in the -I'SLR at Column No.20 as 'g', which does not confer any title to the Govemment. In support of his contention, leamed senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabadt, wherein it is categorically held that an entry made in TSLRper se could not create any doubt or cloud on the right, title and interest ofa person in respect olany land. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of A.P, Ys. Tummala Krishna ftao2, wherein it is observed as hereunder:- "If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that, the ' zool(3) ALD 600 2 etR tg8z sc toet I LNA, J tt'P.No.8094 of 2020 Prcperty belongs to it, and on the basis of .such decision take recourse to the summary remedv provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the propertlt under a bona /ide claim or title. "

4.2. Learr-red senior counsel lor petitioners lLulher subrnitted that in the tight olthe aforesaid judgments, the action of respondcnt No.4 in erecting sign board in the subject propertv stating that it belongs to Government is ilf egal and therelore, pral,ed to alloiv this Writ Petitron.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader lirr Revenue, by referring to the counter, submitted that the sub.iect property is classified as 'paigh land' and att the paigh lands are deemed to be vested with the Government consequent upon the enactment olthe Telangana Abotition of lnams Act, 1955; and that the petitioners could not establish valid flow of title in respect ol the subject property. She further submitted that town survel' of Hyderabad District was conducted in the year 1964-71 as per the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, by duly issuing notification under Section 6(l) of the said Act, and as per the said survey, TS.No.59, Block-1, Ward-188 of Lingampatly Village is classified as 'Govehrnent' land and consequent thereto, Gazette No.36 dated / 5 I,NA, J H'P.No.E094 uf 2t)20

12.07.1977 was also issued and since the entries in the TSLR were not challenged, the same have become flnal and binding on the petltloners.

5.1. Leamed Assistant Covernment Pleader specifically contended that in Column No.20 ol'ISLR, the subject property has been shown as 'Govemment land', and the subject property is placed in land bank. She I'urther submitted that the pctitioners are encroachers of the subject propcny, which is a Govcmrncnt land, and that legal possession vests with the Government, therefbre, respondent No.4 is justified in erecting a sign board in the subject propefty indicating that the same belongs to the Govemment.

6. Perusal of record discloses that the petitioners' father purchased the subject property in the year' 1968 through a registered sale deed and after his death, the petitioners have becn in continuous possession of the said prope(y. It is the specitic case of the petitioners that no notice whatsoever has been issued to them before erecting a sign board by respondent No.4 in the subject property ort 04.06.2020. 6 t,,\,A, J lt'P.No.8094 of 2020 7 . Tl.re Government is claiming the sub.iect propeft,v as 'Govenrrnent land' basing on the entries madc in -t Si-R at Colunrn No.20.

8. As rcgards the value to be attached to the entries rnade in ISLR, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in l{ltslstngod Potteries Privute Limited Vs. Collector, H.t,tlt'rahotl\ and B.N.futanga Devi Vs. Snu of Andhra Pradesh.t has consistently held that an entry in TSLR itself cannot be the conclusive proot'of title or lack of it, and the decision either rr qrant or retlse permission cannot be taken solely on the basis of an entry made in the TSLR and that an entry made in TSLR per se could not create any doubt or cloud on the right, title and interest of'a person in rcspect ol any land.

9. In the teeth ofthe aforesaid settled law, in the instant cuse, it is to bc seen that though gazette notification was issr:ed on

12.07.1977, no steps have been taken by the revenue authorities to claim the subject property and to take possession thereof. Therefore, the Government cannot claim title, right and interest ' 2oo1 (3) ALD 600 o 2011 (6) ALr' 34 7 LNA, J ,YP.No.8091 of 2O20 over the subject property merely based on the entries made in TSLR and erect a sign board therein.

10. Funher, no materiai is placed on record to show that any notice has been issued to the petitioners before crccting a sign board in the subject propefty, which is in cleal violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said action of respondent No.4 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. I I . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the action of respondent No.4 in erecting sign board in the subject property as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioncrs over the subject property without following due procedure under larv.

12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starld closed No costs. Sd/.U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER /ffRUE COPY// 'o ',. ,n" Principal Secretary' Revenue Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State li'llR'*'::'f ?1ft,?li*5'3i,{S5,.it?l'"'["L0,,'non,Hvderabad i,*:H5,]t#F.q'usmuffird};;i{i3,F"'si,e.rreansanaa, - 7. Tiio CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUTI PSK. eur $r HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 ORDER WP.No.8094 ot 2020 i. l HE SIA o (, ilolJ m 2 * -h ir,/YTa ::\:E> ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS \o ,d^ \c\- - l$1*r