1. A. Dhanraj v. 1. The District Collector, Hyderabad District

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim directions suspending the order of the respondent No.3 dt. 13 1.201'1 passed n proceedings No. B/31 166/20.10, as confirmed by the respondents No.2 and 3 vide orders in proceedings No.Bi449l2011 dt.20.8.2011 and E71580712011 cll. 28.12.2011 respectively, pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2012(W\IMP. NO: 3629 OF 2012) Between:

1. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Revenue Division. Hyderabad District.

3. The Tahsildar, [3andlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District at Bandlaguda. ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. A Dhanraj, S/o. A. Babaiah, Mechanic in APSRTC R/o House No. 1B-3-

30. Oustside Lal Darwaja, Kandikal, Boiguda, Hyderabao

2. A Sudhakar Rao, S/o. A. Jagannadham, Dy. Executive Engineer R/o. House No. 18-3-30, Oustside Lal Darwaja, Kandikal, Boiguda, Hyderabad. 3. A Vasantha Kumar, S/o. A. Laxmaiah, Business, R/o. House No. 18-3-30, Oustside Lal Darwaja, Kandikal, Boiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 6-2-2012 in W.P.M.P.No.3484 o'f 2012 in W.P.No. 2780 of 2012 Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER t * t * I t t * , rF- a * , * 1 * , {+ + 1 SK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.278O of 2Ol2 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is liled challenging the order dated i3.01.20 11 passed by the rcspondcnt No.3 Proc.No.B/31166l2OlO as confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 vide orders in Proc.No.449 l2oll dated 20.08.201 I E7l58OT l2oll dated 28.12.2011 respectively, AS arbitrary and illegal.

2. Heard the learned Counsel lor the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel lor thc petiticlncrs would submit that the father of petitioncr No. I has purchased land admeasuring to an cxtent ol 2735 Square Yards, situated outsidc I.al-Danvaja, Boigr-rda Mohalla (Kandikal Gate), I{ydcrabad from onc r, 2 sK..i I Ghousia Begum @ Choti Begum, wife ol-late Abdul Razak through registered sale deerd bearing No.1325,/ 1958 dated 22.12.1958. The said Ghousia Begum h:rd purchased the said propertl, from Mohd.Moinuddin Ahmed S/o. Mohd.Hidayat Ali under a registered sale deed No.2l4 / 1954 dated 21.O5. 1954

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners u,ould lurther submit that the lather of the petitioner No.1 had two brothers vtz.., Jagannadharn @ Jangaiah ar-rd Laxmaiatr. Petitioner No.2 is the son of Jagannadham ald pctitioner No.3 is the son of Laxmaiah. After the death of their fathers, the petitioners being tl're successors-in-interest of their respective fathers are in possession :rnd enjoyment of the said property. Tl.re ancestral house ol the petitioners is situated at a distan<:e of furlong lrom the subject lancl of 3OO sq. 1,ards, wtrich 1S surrounded by a compound wall on four sides. During his life time, the father of the 3 SK..J petitioner No.1 has filed a declaration in respect of the subject land of 300 Sq.Yards under Urban Land Ceiling Act along with the properties owned by him.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that while it being so, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar has issued a notice bearing No.C/26a8/2010 dated 30.l2.2OlO under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment (Eviction ol Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1905 (for short 'Land Encroachment Act') to the petitioners allcging that the subject land is Government land. In reply to the said notice, the petitioners have requested to furnish the necessary documents. Instead of furnishing the documents as sought by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 issued another notice No.B/31166/ 2010 on 31.01.201 1 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act to vacate the premises within twcr days. In response thereto, the petitioners have lield a 4 SIi,.J reply on 25.11.2011, wherein they asserted their title - to the said l:rnd and requested the respondcnt No.3 to drop furthcr proceedings contending that the cntries in the Town fiurvcy Land Records ( for short 'TSLR)' based on rn,hicl-r notices were issued, cannot form the basis for initiating action under the Land Encroachmr:nt Act and also requested to give an opportunity of personal hearing and lor title documents o[ the Government, but no such document was lurnished to the petitioners.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners woulcl further submit that challenging the notices dated 30.|2.2OIO and 31.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal in F:ik: No.Blaa9 120 11 before the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer and the sard appeal was dismissed on 2O.O8.20 11. During the time of hearing, tfre pctitioners have submitted extract ol J SK .I TSLR and copy ol village Map of Kandikal, but the respondent No.2 has not considered the said documents. The viliage map clearly shows that the entire lands of Kandika,l village including the subject lald are 'Abadi', thus the order of the respondent No.2 is contrary to the record and is perverse.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that against the order of dismissal dated 20.08.2O11, the petitioners filed Revision in Proc.No.ET/5BOT /20ll before the respondent No.1 and the said revision was also dismissed on 28.12.2O11. The petitioners have been in longstanding possession of the subject land for the past more than 50 years and it is settled law that the summary proceedings under Land Encroachmcnt Act cannot be invoked in case of person(s) in possession of land for lengthy period of time. The longstanding I possession gives presumption ol title and that the €t SK,.I \ proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act cannot be initiated lor eviction of such longstanding possessors. The Land Encroachment Act is a special statute which enables the Government to protect its land and remove encroachment. While initiating eviction proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act are summary in nature where the authority cannot go into the disputed questions ol title and it does nor- invoive the process ol adjudication by leading evidencr' and proceedings of the respondent No.3 are without .lurisdiction. Alter implementatior.r of the Town Survey rn Hyderabad city during thc year, 1980 the earlier rr:cords had becn superseded by tlre TSLR and it is sett.led law that the TSLR is not ar-r evidence of conclusive title and the cntries in TSLR do not confer any title on the Government.

8. The learned Counsei for the petitioners would lurther strbmit that the respondent Nos.I and 2 failed fit'r 7 SK. J to examine the certified copy of the sketch map issued by the responded No.3 in Proc.No.l9O7 l2ol1, which was issued to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. In the said location sketch of TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271 in the village map of Kandikal, the land of the petitioners to an extent of 1864 Sq.Meters is shown as part of 'Abadi'and there is nothing in lhe sketch to indicate that it is G-Abadi land. In column No.10 ol the TSLR it is shown only as 'Abadi', hou,cver, in Column No.20 it is shown as 'G Abadi'. Since there is discrepancy in the entries of TSLR, the entry 1n column No.10 prevails over the entry in column No.20, because the column No. 10 deals with the name of the 'registered owner' whereas the column No.20 deals with the name of the 'enjoyer'. The petitioners are still in possession of the iand in question and requested to set aside the impugned orders. I \ 3 SK,.J

9. The l,:'arned Counsel for the petitioners rn support I of their contentions, relied on the lollowing .Judgments: I Hgderabad Potteries Prioate Ltd., Vs. Collector, Hgd.erabad District and anotherl

2. Stcrte of Andhra Prq.desh Vs. Hgderabad Potteries Priuate Ltd 2

3. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh Thummala Krishna Rao and another 3 Vs.

4. G.Satganaragna Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Prqdesha

10. The learned Assistant Government F'leader lor Revenue basing on the counter iiled b-y the lespondent No.3 wolrld submit that the land in question admeasurir-tg to an extent of 3OO Sq.yards has been identified on ground which is situated in Sy.No.NIL, correlated to TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271, 1n Kandikal l'illage of Bandlaguda Mandal of Flyderabad District zrnd the said land falls under 'Abarti' and the 'Abadi lands' do not have anv survey number and 1 2OO1 SCC ONLINE AP 397 , (2O1O) s SCC 382 3 (t9A2) 2 SCC t.l.l .2014 {4) ALD 3s8 --/ I (' 9 SK, J therefore for identification of 'Abadi lands' they rely upon the village map of the concerned viliage. The Town Survey was implemented in the TSLR after the publication of the details of Sy.No.NIL, in AP Gazette No.35, dated 29.03.1975 and as per the TSLR, the corresponding TS No.33, Block Q, Ward 271 correlates to old Sy.No.NIL of Kandikal village and recorded in Column No.20 as 'G-Abadi" and in Column No.22 recorded as Vacant land'. The Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.1039, Revenue Department, dated 13.09.1972 as regards classification of the 'Abadi lands'. After completion of the Town Survey, the land in question was recorded as Government land in TSLR by issuing Notification under Section i3 (1) of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and a_lso published 1n the District Gazette No.35, datecl 29.05.1976 and the entries in the TSLR have become final and conclusive proof after publication of Notification Under Sec. 13 (i) oi the said Act, unless the I i0 SIi. J I sarne was challenged and modified by a decree of Civil Suit within three years from the date ol publication of notificatiorr in the District Gazette as stipulated under Section 14 ol the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act,

1923. But no person has challenged the said entries by hling a Civil Suit within the stipulated period, therefore the Town Survey conducted under the provisions of the Act is binding in a,ll the parties. The larld in question is a Government land and the Government is absolute owner and possessor of the land in TS.No.3, Block Q Ward 271 of Kandikal Village and as such the alleged sa,le transaction b1, the father of the petitioner No. 1 oi his alleged vendors has no validity in the eye of law and no one except the Government has right, title or interest over it. 1 1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, on 06.l2.2OlO the Mandal Surveyor has submitted report stating that the l1 SIi. J Government land admeasuring to an extent of 1864 Square Yards in TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward 27 1is being encroached by the petitioners herein by constructing compound wall around it, lor which the respondents restrained them, however, they did not stop the work. In view of the same the respondent No.3 filed a complaint in Chatrinaka Police Station about the encroachment, in spite of the same, the petitioners did not stop the construction. Thereafter the respondent No.3 issued a Notice under Action 7 of the A.P. Encroachment Act, 1905 vide LR.No.C/2648/2O1O dated 30.12.2O1O. In spite of receiving the said notice, the petitioners did not respond and not even submitted their representation till 13.0 1.2O 1 1. In pursuance to the said notice, the respondent No.3 issued orders in Proc.No.B/31166/2OlO dated 13.01.2011 under Section 6 of rhe Land Encroachment Act to the petitioners and asked the petitioners to vacate the subject land within two dai's. t2 SK .I .l

12. The learned Assistant Goverr,ment Pieader lurther subrnits that the land in TS No.33. Block Q, Ward No.271, admeasuring 1864 Sq.yards has been vacalt and is in uninterrupted possession of the Government. Out of the said extent, the petitioners have encroached an extent of 300 Sq.yards and tried to construct a compound wall with gate in the year, 20 10, therefore the impugned orders were passed IN lrroceedings No.B/3116612010 dated 13.O1.2011, Proc.No.B/49912011, dated 2O.O8.2O11 and Proc.No.ET'l 5807 l2Ol1 dated 28.12.2O11 are legal ernd valid and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

13. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered. view that the petitioners are questioning the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities under the Land Encroachment Act and also for eviction, w"hich was confirmed by the appellate and the 13 SK, J revisional authorities in respect of the suit schedule property. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioner No. t has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent ol 2735 sq. yards situated outside Laf-Darwaza, Boiguda Moha-lla i.e., Kandikal gate, Hyderabad from one Ghousia Begum @ Choti Begum through registered sale deed document bearing No. 1325/1958, dated 22.12.1958 and the same was purchased by her lrom one Mohd. Moinuddin Ahmed through registered sale deed document No.2'14/L954 dated 21.O5.1954. During the life time, the father of the petitoner No.1 filed a declaration in respect of the subject land of 300 sq. yards under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 along u,ith the other properties owned by him and they are in continuous possession of the property without any interruption. While it being so, the respondent authorities have issued notice under Section 7 of the Teiangana Land Encroachment (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, i905 in I I I l4 S Ii, ,I { bearing Nct.C 1264812010 dated 30.12.20111 claiming that the setid land is Government land. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued alother notice bearing No.B/31166 l2O2O dated 13.01.2O11 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act for evicting the petitioners from the suit schedule property. The :rppeal and the revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed. In view of the sarne, the said ,rrders are impugned in the writ petition.

14. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent-s without having any right over the property merely basing on the Town Survey Land Records have issued the impugned proceedings and thr: same is arbitrary and illegal ald also contrary to the orders of this Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The further contention of the petitioners is that they are in longstanding possession of the property ald the question of. resumption does not arise. As per the 15 SK, J information given by the authorities and the location sketch of TS.No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271 in the village map of Kandikal, the land of the petitioners to an extent of 7864 sq. meters is shown as part of Abadi and there is nothing in the sketch to indicate that it is G-abadi. In Column No. 10 of the TSLR, it is shown as. 'abadi' however in column No.20, it is shown as 'G- abadi'and since there is discrepancy in the entries of TSLR, the entry in Column No.10 prevails over the entry in Colum No.20 because the column No.10 dea-ls with the name of the 'registered owner' whereas the column No.2O deals with the name of the enjoyer.

15. The contention of the respondents is that the land in question admeasuring to an extent of 3OO Square Yards has been identified on ground which is situated in old Sy.No.Nil correlated to TS.No.33 Block-Q, Ward No.271 in Kandikal Village of Bandlaguda Mandal Hyderabad District and the said l6 SIi, .J land falls in 'abadi'and abadi lands do not have anv survey number and therefore, for identification of abadi lan,1s, they rely only on the village map of the concerned village. As per TSLR, the corresponding TS.No.33 Block-Q Ward No.271 correlates to Old Sy.No.Nil of Kandikal Village and recorded at Column No.20 as 'G-Abadi'and at Column No.22 recorded as 'v:rcant lancl '. The entries in the TSLR have become final and c,onclusive after publication of the notification under Ser:tion 13(1) of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act,1923 and the said survey was conducted under the provisions of the Act is binding on all the parties and therefore, no person has right and title over the properties.

16. The respondents are relying only on TSLR entries in Column No.20 of the suit scheduie prol)orty and it was mentioned as 'G-abadi. With regard to the TSLR entries, the Judgments relied on by the learned t7 SIi, J counsel for the petitioners are squarely apply to the rnstant case.

17. In Thummala Krishna Rao's case (3 supra), the relevant portion of the Judgment in para No.9 1S extracted as under; "The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the allegcd encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far That was a.lso the view taken by the learned single Judge him self in another case which is reported in Meherunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was afhrmed by a Division Bench. lt is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whetl-rer the summaqr remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question .is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona hde. Facts ".which raise a bond fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the Ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is hl occupation of a property openly for a-n appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bonafide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law." 18 SK..', .,1

18. In Hyderabad Potteries'case (2 supra), the relevant portion of the Judgment in para No.26 is extracted ,:Ls under; " The sole basis of the Appellant to claim the land was on the strcngth of entries made in survey records showing that the schcdule property was surveyed as T.S. No. 4 /2, Ward No. (i6 of Bakaram village having an area of 19214 sq. mctcrs showing it as a gap area i.e. un-surveyed area as per the old survey records and as such it could only be declarecl to be Government land as has been recorded in Colurnn No. 2O of thc T.S.L.R. Apart from the said revenue record arrd issuance of gazette notification as mentioned hereinabove, no other material document was filed by the Appc)lant to show that the said lald belonged only to Governrnent. It is trite that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sullicient as conclusive proof of title nor can br: relied on for proof of establishing the title as such."

19. In G. Satyanaraya's case (4 supra), the relevant portion ol'the Judgment in para Nos. 159 ald 176 is extracted zrs under; " I 5!r. Detailed Town Survey was carried out in some municipalitics and Panchayats in Andhra Area. In Telarrgana region detailed Town Suney of the twin cities was carried out in 1966-70. Thc object of uridertaking detailed surveys is not only 7 t9 SIi, J to survey the boundary between the streets and private properties, but also the boundaries of a-ll private properties whether built up or vacant, Government lands a;rd Municipality lands The system of survey held is quite diffcrent from the system followed in respect oi villages containing open lands. Thc nature and scope of entries in TSLR fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 115 and 16O of 2OOO. P.Vcnkatramam Reddy.,J (as his l,ordship then was) w'hile speaking for the Division Bench held that entries in TSLR are no doubt relevant, but they are not conclusive; that TSLR cannot be regarded as the sole guiding factor while dealing with applications for building permissions; and that TSLRs havc to be considered in conjunction with other documents which t,he applicimt u'ould like to place reliance upon."

176. The petitioners have claimed ownership of the land in respcct of a common property based on a compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 1420/ 1983. The petitioners have traced their title throrrgh their grand mother late Sultan Khatoon who has purchased an extent of 23445 sq. mtrs. of land under registered salc deed 932 of 1336 Fasli (19261. ln O.S.No. l42ol 1983, compromise decree dated 2-12-1983, was obtained by the petitioners whereunder the property was partitioned between them. The proceedings under the 1905 Act were initiated only based on the entry in the TSLR describing the land as G-Abadi. In the counter-affidavit, thc respondents have not denied thc existence of registered sale deed under which the petitioners grand mother has purchased the property as far back as the year 1926. They have also not disputed the plea of the petitioners that for almost 90 years, their family has been in possession of the property. The long standing uninterrupted possession of the petitioners farnily raises a reasonable 20 SK,.I l presumption that the property in question is a pm'ate property and the same does not belong to the Governmcnt. Such a presumption can be displaced by the Government only in a properly constituted civil proceeding. On thesc undisputed facts of the case, thc ratio in thc Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tummala Krishna Rao ( I -supra) squarcly applies. The respondents carr-rnot therefore resort to summary proceedings of eviction uncler thc provisions of the 19O5 Act as there is a bona fide dispute relating to ownership of the land. Following the dicta laid down in Tummala Krishna Rao (l-supra) and the finding rcndered by this Court on Point No.4, the only option left with the respondents is to file a civil suit. The impugned proceedings are thereforc Iiablc to bc quashed with liberty to the respondents to approat:h the competent Civil Court.

20. The above lindings ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court squarcly apply to thc instart case. In the instant case also, the rcspondents a-re not denying the execution of documents in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners except from relying on in column No.20 of the TSLR, which was mentioned the schedule land as 'G-ababi'. If the respondents have aly right, they can rlpproach the cornpetent Civil Court for declaration of their title. 2l SIi. J 2L. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is allou,ed by setting aside the impugned order in Proceedings No.B/31166/2OlO dated 13.01.2011 passed b_y the respondent No.3 and the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.2 and 1 vide proceedings No.Bl449/2OlI dated 20.08.20 11 and E7 /5807 l2oll dated 28.12.2011 respectively. No order as to costs.

22. Miscellaneous petitioners, if any pending in this writ pctition, shall stand closed.- . That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' witness the Hon'ble th' chi;;:;t;;" lpnnesH ruMAR SINGH' on this Monday, the rwentv '""";1;;;;:;i";;;i rwo rhousand and rwentv rive \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ivision, HYderabad

1. The District Collector' Hyderabad District - ; iii; "R;;;;;; bivisionar-orricer' Hvderabad R"r"s Dislrict. andal. Hvderabad District at Bandlaguda. +[""'i3;l3tr"E3'J',HE1?Xti:iirgi]b".,,;'ii""nestateoit-riisunu't 8#"it?i JRHI'L EK JA,N, Advocate roPUCl Two CD CoPies 3 4 5 t) SA BS W I * +t I I + *. t, *, , * *- { i t s , n , l| * * HIGH COURT DATED:22109t12025 ORDER WP.No.2780 of 2012 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT CCISTS. @ tpt{ I ,. r',- - l(r- cd. 28 o[Iffi o€sr,lr rcH '\= t-i: v I I I O a