Asifnagar v. Rep. by its Registrar

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to L.G.C.No.17 of 1998, dated

03.03.2004 on the file of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and to quash the same as illegal and void.

The brief averments of the case, necessary for disposal of the writ petition are stated as under: - Mallepally Village is an Ex-Jagir Village, the total extent of which is 900 acres. Out of it, 600 acres were under the possession and use of Ex-Nizam’s Army and for the remaining acres, a Muntakhab bearing Tameel No.1573, was issued in the name of Ahmed Ali Mirza Khan, Jagirdar of Mallepally Village. The shares are shown as mentioned in the application. The application schedule property, located in Sy. No.27 of Mallepalli village, which is correlated to T.S.Nos.5, 6 and 7 Block-G Ward No.37, in Sy. No.27, was declared as Government Land by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.509 of 1977 and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.16948 of 1985. By virtue of the judgment, the NON-ISF lands of Mallepally village have been declared as Government lands. Thus, the application schedule property is a Government land. The respondents grabbed the Government land located in T.S.NOs. 5,6 & 7, Ward No.37, Block-G of Mallepally village to an extent of 802 sq. mtrs, and constructed a building. The permission granted by the Municipal Corporation does not confer any right or title. Hence, the petitioner seeks to declare the respondents as land grabbers, constructions made therein are illegal, evict them from the schedule land and deliver vacant possession of the same to the State.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is alleged that the 1st respondent is not a party to O.S.No.71 of 1969 which was filed by the legal representatives of Ex-Jagirdar, claiming possession and the said suit was dismissed and the appeal in C.C.C.A.NO.99 of 1977, against the said Judgment, was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. This respondent does not aware of the suit O.S.No.71 of 1969 or the appeal preferred in C.C.C.A.No.99 of 1977. The respondent does not know that Sy. No.27 of Mallepally village is correlated to T.S.NOs.5, 6 and 7, Block-G, Ward No.37 and the finding of the Hon’ble High Court in W.A.No.509 of 1987. This respondent is not aware that the Apex Court confirmed the said judgment in S.L.P. No.16948 of 1985. The house bearing Door. No.10-1-821 is the ancestral property of this respondent. Originally, this property belonged to Syed Peeram, son of Syed Abdul Qader. Syed Peeram sold this property to the respondent’s father Joserph Xavier, under a registered sale deed dated 27th Ardibashit 1356 Fasli i.e. 1946 A.D. and inducted him into possession. The father of this respondent, this respondent and his family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The house is still in the name of his father. The Jagirdar of Mallepally village or Government of Hyderabad were never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Government has no right, title to and interest in the schedule property. The applicant is not the owner of the land in T.S.No.5 of Mallepally village and the applicant was not in possession of the property within the statutory period. This respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for a long time. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to this property. The petitioner filed O.P.No.554 of 1992 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for similar relief and the same was dismissed.

On considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Special Court held that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence showing that the subject matter of O.P.No.554 of 1992 is different from the subject matter of the present L.G.C. The applicant filed O.P.No. 554 of 1992 against the father of 4th respondent in respect of the subject matter of this application schedule property, bearing door No.10-1-823, when the respondents 1 to 4 proved their right, title and interest and possession over the application schedule property. Ultimately, the Special Court came to the conclusion that the respondents are not the land grabbers and accordingly, dismissed the application.

Heard both sides.

It is seen from the record that the M.R.O. has filed O.P.No.554 of 1992 against the father of the 4th respondent under Section 7 (a) of the Act, which was dismissed. The contention of the respondents herein is that since the O.P.No.554 of 1992 was already dismissed, the present L.G.C. is not maintainable.

In this regard, the applicant-State has not produced any evidence that the subject matter of O.P.No.554 of 1992 is different from the subject matter of L.G.C., which ended in favour of the father of the 4th respondent.

That apart respondents 3 and 4 proved their right, title and interest over the application schedule property. There overwhelming evidence on record that the respondents have got title over the application schedule property and they have perfected their title by adverse possession.

Under these circumstances, the Special Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the State. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment and it does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.