The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3490 ol 2023 Petition under Section 1 15 of C. P.C. against the order dated 13-06-2023 passed in l.A.No 521 of 2019 in A.S.No 273 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. at Hyderabad. Between: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, (Now known as "Telangana Housing Board" for the State of Telangana), "Gruhakalpa", Mukkaramjahi road, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary ...Petitioner/Appellant 7 AND 1 Kamakshi Builders, 2-2-1137131C11, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, Partner, 2 3 4 o 7 R.S. Rangadas S/o R.Sayanna. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Socrety, 1-8-1, lnner Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary. State Bank of lndia, Lingampaly Branch, Represented by its Manager. Mohd. Misbahuddin Khan (died per L.Rs.) Smt. Sadathunnisa Begum, Wo late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 69 years Vicaruddin. S/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 53 years Smt. Salamathuddin Khan, S/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 48 years. Md. Masahuddin Khan, Wo late Misbahuddin Khan, aged about 36 years. Md. Waliuddin Khan, S/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 36 years. I l0.Shaheed Begum, D/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 34 years. Respondents 5 to 10 are R/o H. No.658-2 -26213, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Buchi Babu Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3502 of 2023 Petition under Section 1 15 of C. P.C. against the order dated 13-06-2023 passed in l.A.No 256 of 2019 in A.S.No.273 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, (Now known as "Telangana Housing Board" for the State of Telangana), "Gruhakalpa", Mukkaramjahi road, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary ...Petitioner/Appellant AND

1. Kamakshi Burlders. 2-2-1137131C11, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, Partner, R.S. Rangadas S/o R. Sayanna.

2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Society, 1-8-1, lnner Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary.

3. State Bank of lndia, Lingampaly Branch, Represented by its Manager. 4. Mohd Misbahuddin Khan (died per L.Rs.) 5. Smt. Sadathunnisa Begum, Wo late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 69 years 6. Vicaruddin, S/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 53 years 7. Smt. Salamathuddin Khan, S/o late Misbahuddin Khan, aged 48 years. 8. Md Masahuddin Khan, Wo late Misbahuddin Khan, aged about 36 years. 9. Md. Waliuddin Khan. S/o late l/isbahuddin Khan, aged 36 years. 10. Shaheed Begum, D/o late lvlisbahuddin Khan, aged 34 years. Respondents 5 to 10 are R/o H. No.658-2 -26213, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents (Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are not necessary parties) Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Buchi Babu Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT r__J THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.9 of 2023, CML REVISION PETITION Nos.349O & 3502 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since a common issue arises in the appeal and the revision petitions, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed chalienging the judgment and decree dated L3.06.2023 passed in A.S.No.273 of 2018 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. C.R.P.No.349O of 2023 is hled challenging the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.52 1 of 2Ol9 in A.S.No.273 of 2Ot8 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

4. C.R.P.No.35O2 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in I.A,No.256 of 2OI9 in A.S.No.273 of 2018 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I SI<S,J CMSA-No.9 o:2O23 a.d batch

5. The brief facts of the case are A.S.No.273 of 2018 arises from the dismissal of a claim petition, E.A. No. 3O7 of 2Ol4 in E.P. No. 90 of 2OO7 in O.S. No. 161 of 1989, by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (now Telangana Housing Board), claimed ownership over a total extent of Ac.3-30 guntas, including the suit schedule property admeasuring 2976 sq. yards. The Board contended that the said land formed part of a larger extent of Ac.50.25 guntilts and 15 square yards acquired under the Land Acquisition Act through an award dated 31.12.1975, and possession thereof was taken on 20.01.1976. It was further claimed that although Ac. 1-20 guntas of the acquired land was subsequently withdrawn from acquisition through a Government Memo issued at the request of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Society, the original lando'*'ners did not refund the compensation of Rs.2,68,268 /- already paid.

6. The Board asserted that no re-conveyance took place and that it t:ontinued to exercise ownership by constructing additional floors, a compound wall, and leasing Ac.2-10 guntas to the said Society. It was only after the judgment of I 3 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2023 and batch the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6345 of 2000, which upheld the decree in O.S. No. 161 of 1989 in favour of the respondent/decree holder, that the Board became aware that the decree holder was attempting to take possession of a portion ofthe 3 acres 30 guntas-

7. On the other hand, the decree holder/respondent No. 1 denied the claim of the Housing Board and submitted that the claim was not maintainable as it constituted a collateral attack on a decree affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court. It was further contended that the land measuring 2976 square yards, including a portion of the Ambedkar College building, was lau{ully decreed in their favour and that the Housing Board had no right or title over the same, especially since the lald had been formally deleted from acquisition. Respondent No.2, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Society, supported the Board's claim, stating that the entire extent of Ac.3-3O guntas belonged to the Housing Board, with Ac.2-10 guntas leased to the Society and Ac. 1-20 guntas withdrawn in their favour. However, they admitted that full particulars of the acquisition proceedings were not within their knowledge during the original trial in O.S. No. 161 of 1989. 4 SKS,J CMSA-No.9 of 2023 and t atch \ B. Various documents, including acquisition arvards, lease deeds, government memos, court pleadings, and judgments, were placed on record. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed the claim petition, holding that the Housing Board had failed to prove its title and that the relief sought amounted to an impermissible challenge to a final decree passed by the Hontrle Supreme Court.

9. The co::e issue in the appeal suit '"vas "vhether Housing Board's claim to ownership could be sustained ln spite of the earlier withdrawal from acquisition and the finality of the decrees. and whether execution of the clecree in O.S.No. 161 o1 1989 could be lawfully restrained

10. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evi<lence, the appellate Court held that the Housing Board had not established title to the suit schedule property- The l]oard had failed to produce conclusive evidence proving payment of compensation to the original landowners for the specific extent in dispute. Further, it was observed that in eariier proceedings (CRP No. 4999 of 2009), the Board had taken a categorical stand that it had no interest in the execution :7 5 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2023 and batch petition property, undermining its present position. The appellate Court found 2074 claim petition to be not only delayed but also seemingly collusive, filed in coordination with Respondent No.2 to obstruct enforcement of the decree During cross-examination, the Board's Secretary admitted that the petition was filed on rnformation given by the judgment debtor and acknowledged prior knowledge of the decree and related proceedings as early as 2OO9 and that that once the acquisition was withdrawn, the land reverts to the origina-l owner, and no automatic rights accrue to the acquiring authority. In light of the contradictory stands taken by the Board and the absence of reliable evidence, the appellate Court concluded that the claim was devoid of merit Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the IV Senior Civil Judge rejecting lhe claim petition was confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was filed.

11. Further, the appellant/ petitioner filed I.A.Nos.256 and 52 1 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC in A.S. No. 273 of 2018, seeking to produce additional documentary evidence at the appellate stage. In I.A.No.256 of 6 SI(S,J CMSA.No-9 of 2O23 and batch 2019, the documents included a certifred copy of the Ledger \ Extract for 21005-06 and Form D issued by the Special Deputy Coilector (LA), Hyderabad. In I.A.No.521 of 2019, the clocuments comprised certified copies of the Execution Petition No.22 of 2OO9, related affidavits, ald calculation memos dated

29.O1.2OO9 and 23.12.2O1Q. The respondent opposed both applications, alleging that they were filed onl1. to delay proceedings. Upon hearing both sides and examining the documents, the appellate court observed that the documents rvere in existence at the time of trial and the appellant had failed to provide satisfactory reasons for not producing them earlier. Moreover, the appellant did not establish the relevance or necessif of these documents for the effective adjudication of the appeal. Consequently, finding the applications devoid of merit and lacking in justification under the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court dismissed both petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the C.R.P.Nos.349O and 35O2 of 2023 are filed.

12. Heard Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner as well as Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7,/ 7 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2O23 and batch

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the trial court and the lower appellate court failed to properly appreciate the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leading to a rniscarriage of justice and that the appellant had initiated acquisition proceedings for a total extent of Ac.52.35 guntas, pursuant to which an award was passed on

31.12.1975, marked as Ex.B16. On the same day, compensation was deposited before the Chief Jtidge, City Civil Court, under Section 3 1(2) of the Act, clearly establishing that the possession of the lald had vested with the Government. He further submitted that the courts below, horvever, tailed to appreciate this crucial fact and erroneously dismissed the claim petition.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitte d that the Courts below ignored settled legal principles relating to land acquisition stating that once land is acquired under the Act and possession is taken, it vests absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances, and the State has no power under Section 48 of the Act to withdraw or re convey the land to the erstwhile owner (reliance placed on AIR 2005 SC 4921. He also submitted that the erstwhile lzrndowner has 8 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2023 and batch no right of restitution or claim over the land post acquisition, \ save for rer:eiving compensation, unless there is a statutory amendment permitting such restoration (2O12 CJ.(SC) 1O58). Moreover, e:ven if the land is not utilised for i1s originally intended pLrrpose, it may be used for any other public purpose, and no right of reversion accrues to the previous owner (.1 996 CJ (SC) 2731.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that substantial tluestions of law arise in this Civil Miscellaneor.rs Second Appeal are: Whether the Courts below were justified in deciding the issue of title and possession lvit hout examining the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and re\ring solely on admissions in cross-examination? Wtrether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing I.A. Nos. 256 and 527 of 201c), filed for production of additional evidence, without exercising its powers under Order XLt Rule 27 CPC? Whether reliance on Ex.B 1 to estop the ap1;ellant's claim was proper, despite the ll. ll1 9 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2023 and batch distinct subject matter of CRP.MP No. 4999 of 2OO9 in CRP No. 1940 of 2008?

16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court failed to independently assess the evidence and merely confirmed the findings of the trial Court without assigning fresh reasoning and that the reliance on Ex.B1 by both Courts was asserted to be improper, as it led to dismissal of the appellant's legitimate claim without examining the full factual and legal matnx. The learned counsel contended that both respondents had suppressed material facts regarding the acquisition of the subject property, thereby procuring a decree which, if executed, would cause grave prejudice to the appellant's lawful intercst in the property. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the appellate Court by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the first appellate Court failed to properiy appreciate the contentions raised in I.A. Nos.256 and 52 1 of 2019 and dismissed the application without due consideration, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and that the additional documents 10 sKs,J CMsA-No g of 2023 and batch sought to be introduced were highly relevant to the matter in .{ issue, particularly concerning the payment of compensation to the original landowners in the context of the land. acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that these documents go to the root of the dispute and are essential for effectively adjudicating the core issues involved in the appeal. He contended thilt the documents would assist the appellate Court in rendering a comprehensive judgment on all the questions a:rising in the case. He further contended that the appellate Court had taken a narrow view by dismissing the application rvithout evaiuating the importance and relevance of the documents, and such reasoning was pen,erse as it overlooked the substantive issues in controversy. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the appellate Court by allorving these civil revision petitions.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denied the ,averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner, stating that the claim petition filed by the Housing Board is a collusive attempt to aid Dr. B.R Ambedkar E<lucational Society. He further submitted that the Society contested the matter up to the Hon'blr: Supreme 1,1, SKS,J CMSA.No-9 of 2O23 and batch Court, and throughout the litigation, from the trial court to the apex court, the Housing Board had acknowledged the ownership of the original owner, i.e., respondent No.1. Furtherrnore, the Commissioner of the Housing Board himself filed an affidavit stating that the Board had no connection with the suit schedule property. Therefore, both the trial Court and the first appellate Court rightly decided the matter in favour of the original owner. The learned counsel submitted that the orders passed by both courts are well-reasoned and require no interference, and he prayed the Court to dismiss the second appeal and the civil revision petitions.

19. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: Whether the Courts below were right in deciding the legal consequences with respect to the possession of the property withdrawn/deleted from the land acquisition proceedings without properly referring to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

20. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the central issue in the appeal pertains to the title and 12 sKs,J CMSA.No.9 of 2023 and batch I possession of Ac. 1.20 guntas of land situated within the \ premises o1' Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Socrety. It is an admitted fzLct that the Andhra Pradesh Housing. Board had acquired a total extent of Ac.50.25 guntas and 15 square yards, which originally included the land in question, through an award dated 31.12.1975. It is also undisputed that a portion of Ac. 1 -20 guntas was later deleted from acquisition at the request of the Educational Society. The present dispute, however, concerns whether the additional Ac. 1.20 guntas was also deleted and, if so, whether it reverted to the original o\\rner.

21. The trurden to prove such deletion and reversion lies squarely on the original owner, who claimed that the land was no longer vested with the Housing Board. In support of this claim, the respondents relied upon documents filed in CRP.M.P.No.4999 of 2OO9 in CRP No.1940 of 2008, particularly a counter affidavit where the Housing Board stated that it had no interest in the Ac. 1.20 guntas that had been deleted. This was also admitted by P.W. 1 during cross- examination. The trial Court relied heavily on this document 13 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2O23 and batch of Ex.Bl and concluded that the Housing Board had no connection with the suit schedule property.

22. However, this Court finds that such reliance, whiie significant, does not sufliciently address the issue of whether compensation was in fact paid for the Ac. 1.20 guntas that had allegedly been deleted. The appellant contended that compensation for this portion had already been paid, and that the land, once acquired and compensated for, could not revert to the original owner. The appellant referred to Ex.B16, where the original owner, Mohd. Misbahuddin Khan, had claimed compensation not only for the building and compound wall but also for land setbacks and open spaces, which, by implication, included the deleted portion. If compensation for the deleted portion was indeed paid and accepted, the doctrine of reversion would not apply, and the title would remain with the Housing Board.

23. This material aspect was not properly appreciated either by the trial Court or by the lirst appellate Court. In addition, the appellant attempted to submit further supporting documents at the appellate stage, including certified copies of , ,-I \ 74 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2O23 and batch the ledger extract for 2005-06 and Form D issued by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Hyderabad, as well as certified copies of the Execution Petition No.22 of 2OO9 and related aflidavits ald calculation memos. These documents, which could substantiate the claim that compensation was paid for the deleted portion, were rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that they were available at the time of filing the claim and could have been presented earlier. However, this Court finds that these documents are directly relevant to the core issue, whether compensation was paid for the disputed land, ald their exclusion has prejudiced the case of the appellant.

24. In view of the importance of these documents in determining rvhether the land reverted to the original owner or continued to vest in the Housing Board, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires a re-examination. The exclusion of relevant evidence has led to an rncomplete adjudication of the issue. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to set aside the .ludgment and decree dated 13.06.2023 passed in A.S.No.273 ol 2O18 as well as the order passed b1. the trial 15 SKS,J CMSA.No.9 of 2o23 and batch court in E.A.No.307 of 2014 in E.P.No.90 of 2OO7 in O.S.No. 161 of 1989.

25. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023 passed in A.S.No.273 of 2Ol8 as well as the orders passed by the trial Court in E.A.No.307 of 2Ol4 in E.P.No.90 of 2OO7 in O.S.No.161 of

1989. The matter is remanded to the trial Court directing it to receive and consider the additional documents submitted by the appellant, conduct a fresh evaluation of the evidence on record, and dispose of ttre claim petition afresh in accordance with law. The trial Court shall provide adequate opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and render its decision on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. i\ SDi.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOr T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' CTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. The lV Senaor Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies kam/PSL ?*a. HIGH COUR:T DATED:0611012025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMSA.No.9 of 2023, CRP.Nos.34.90 & 3502 of 2023 ^{ l{i s 20 0Ci 6p ) ( \ > a o4rCHEo ALLOWING CMSA AND BOTH CRP'S ?$h. ,9 \to\u{