lVlohd Yousuf Ali v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the actron of respondent authorties in interfering in possession and title of the petitioner in respect of property bearing Door No.168/P on plot No. 5 admeasuring 272 Sq Yards situated opposite to ESI Hospital Erragadda Title Passed through registered documents in accordance with provisions of registration nact and transfer of property act and having title and possession- for more than 50 years as illegal, arbitrary and un constitutional and also against the principles of natural justice and consequentially restrain the respondent authorities from interfering and attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his owned and possessed property bearing door No. '1 6B/P on plot No. 5 admeasuring 272 Sq Yards situated opposite to ESI Hospital, got title and possession with r(ra stered documents' existing since more tharr 50 years, without authorization un, eI law and sanction of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Seltion 151 CPC praying that in the r;irlumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the petition, the High Cour': nay be pleased to restrain the respondent ;authorities f rom interfering and attenti ting to dispossess the petitioner from his owned and possessed property bearir 3 ,loor No. 168/P on plot No. 5 admeasuring 272 Sq Yards situated opposite to :r:;l Hospital got title and possession with registered documents existing since lrc re than 50 years, without authorization under law and sanction of law, pen:1irg disposal of the main Writ petitio n. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN FIEDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 22627 0F 2020^ ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the petitioner,s possession and title over the propert5r bearing Door No. 168/p on plot No. 5, admeasuring 272 squate yards, situated opposite ESI Hospital, trrragadda (hereinafter referred to as the ,subject property'), as iilegal, arbitrarSr, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to have acquired valid title through registered documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act arrd the Tralsfer of property Act and has been in continuous possession of the subject property for over 50 years. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a consequential direction to restrain the respondent authorities from interfering with or attempting to dispossess him from the subject property without due authorization and sanction of law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub.:nits that the property bearing H.No. 8-3-168 was origi rrlly owned and possessed by Sri Surya Narayana li.ao and Sri Ranga Rao. They sold the said property, aft:rr dividing it into several p1ots, in the year 1971 thr<:ugh a hrm named Estate Sales Corporation. The ven<lor of the petitioner, Smt. Padma Bai Abraham, pur-chased the subject property through a registered sale <leed bearing No. 347/1972. dated O1.12.1972, registt:r,::d at the District Registrar Ofhce, Hyderabad, from the said Sri Surya Narayana Rao and Sri Ranga Rao.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the subject property from Smt. Padma Bai AbraLam rhrough a registered sale deed bearing No. 2292/2))3, dated

05.07.2003, registered at the Sub-Regislr,rr Office, Hyderabad. Learned counsel further subm.tsr that the petitioner's ven<lor had earlier submitted an a pplication to the Tahsildar, Urban Ta1uq, Hyderabad, sr:e king a No Objection Certihcate (NOC) in respect of the subject 1,, Page 3 ol 12 property. Vide Letter No. D /4306 / IgZ8, dated 1LO6.1978, the Tahsildar issued a No Objection Certificate stating that the propert5r bearing H.No. g-3_ 168 is private patta lald and not Government land. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has obtained water and electricit5r connections for the subject propertlz. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment o[ the said property. 4 It is submitted that when the official respondents attempted to interfere with the petitioner,s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioner filed W.p. No. 25271 of 2OlO, which is still pending adjudication. Subsequently, when the respondents sought to acquire the land for the Metro Rail project, the petitioner filed W.p. No. 41345 of 2014. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the ofhcia_l respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. I'age 4 ol 12

5. Further-, when the respondents iss;u,:d notices under the Land Encroachment Act, the pr:ti:ioner filed W.P. No. 13492 of 2Ol 7. This Court, wl:iJe granting status quo as on that date in all respects fc r :r period of five weeks, disposed of the writ petition gra.nring liberty to the petitioner to fi1e aIr appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. The appella..r: authority was directed to consider and pass ordr:r s on the application frrr condonation of delay as well as on the application seeking interim relief. h

6. It is a_lso submitted that this Hon,bl:: Court, in similar circumstances, passed orders in W.p. .,,1o. 15564 of 2071, dated 26.06.2012, holding that thr: petitioner therein shall r-rot be dispossessed from the sr.rtr.1ect land. However, the petitioner therein was a_lso dire:<: ed not to raise any construction on the subject larrd u e il further orders. a/)

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that, since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, having acquired the same from his vendor for valid sale consideration. He further submits that, as the offrcial respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yerikala Sunkalamma & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department ofRevenuel and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabadz.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affrdavit, submits that the petitioner has already lrledwritpetitions viz.,W.P.No.2527 I of 201O,W.P. N9. \'- -/ I Cn'il Appcal No.4l t t o12025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No 3324 of 2015) t zoo r (t) aLu 6oo age 6 of l2 41345 of 2014, and W.P. No. 13492 of 2( l0 seeking similar reliefs u'ith respect to the same subje::t property. \ 9 . He furthr:r submits that the pet it i,)ner has suppressed the fact that his appl; :i rtion for regularization \ /as rejected by the official resl)(,ndents. It is submitted that while the petitioner claims tl rere was a house on the subject property, the said lald, cn ground, falls in T.S. No.1, Ward No.7, Block-E, corrt:lzrted to old Survey No.127 of Bobbaguda village. As per tl e revenue records, the land is classified as 'Sarkari, ((_i.rvernment land), and it is vacant, with a signboard ere ::red on site clearly stating l.hat the land belongs to the (i rvernment and that trespassers will be prosecuted. As p,:. the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR), Column lJo.10, the classification is recorded as 'sarkari', and ir-r Column No.20, it is recorded as "G - Hospita_I,'. -- 10. J-{esutrenits that the petitioner,s claim r: being the absolute owner and possessor of the subjec, llroperty is false. The petitioner had earlier made an appl ication for 7 Page 7 ol l2 regolarization under G.O.Ms.No. 166, which was rejected by the District Level Committee. This rejection was also communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. R219827l2OlO, dated O9.O4.2O12. However, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed this fact.

11. He further submits that eviction proceedings were initiated, and a notice under Section 7 of tlc.e A.P. Land Encroachment Act (A.P.L.E. Act) was issued on

31.03.2012. The petitioner failed to produce any valid documents in support of his claim, and it was therefore concluded that he has no valid title or lawful claim over the Government land in question. As no material evidence was submitted by the petitioner to support his occupation, a direction under Section 6 of the A.P.L.E. Act was issued, requiring him to vacate the Government L2. It is also submitted that the petitioner, aggrieved by the eviction notice issued vide Proceedings No ClL516/2O1O, dated 10.O4.2012, filed W.P. No. 13492 Page 8 of l2 of 2010. The said writ petition was dispost:d of with a direction to the petitioner to file arr appea. before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Hyde:-: bad. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed .,,ide Appeal No. B/ l4OO /'2017 , dated 17.O4 .2O t7 .

13. He further contends that the officiai r(-,rsponclents have never attempted to dispossess thr petitioner unlawfully. The petitioner encroached upon r, re subject Iand and had erected a shutter from wht,::h he was conducting business by selling sweaters ancl Led sheets. This encroachment was removed.

14. It is submitted that the land has remi; irred under the custody of the Government and is regislt:r-ed in the Government Land Bank under Entry No.9,,)(,. A letter was a-lso addressed to the ACp, panjagutta. r,ide Letter No. C/7522/2OlO, d.ated 27.11.2010, reqLrcsting the registration of ar FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.1,.)lj of 2021, dated 24.O2.2027, was registered against the p,:titioner. Pagc 9 ol 12

15. The learned counsel hna-lly submits that the petitioner is in the habit of encroaching upon Government lald through various means and has been hling false and frivolous cases against Government oflicials. He, therefore, seeks disposal of the Writ Petition in terms of the above submissions.

16. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent is only a formal party to the proceedings and would abide by the stand taken by the 3rd respondent. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in obtaining relief despite filing multiple writ petitions seeking different reliefs in respect of the same subject property. Pagc l0 of l2

18. In view of the counter afhdavit filed by the J.a respondent, wherein it is stated that 1he ofhcial respondents have not attempted to dis c, >ssess the petitioner without following due process o,. law, ald without making any observations re1.,rt r-ding the petitioner's possession or dispossession frorrr .he subject property, this Court deems it appropriate to gr-alt liberty to the petitioner to make a detail represenlaLion before the official respondent/competent authoritr,. rilong with original documents, if any, to substantiatc his claim over the properl5r, as a last opportunity, sin::e his earlier application for regularization has already trr: rn rejected by the District Level Committee. L9. Upon hlitrg such representation, 3.d i-rspondent_ Tahsildar shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordalce with law, as expeditiously as pos;s ble.

20. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed aly opinion on the aspect of the petitioner,:; cossession or entitlement,lo possession over the subjecr. g:roperty. a I)age ll of 12

21. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. To, //TRUE COPY' SD/ A .PONNA ANT SHNA TRAR GIS CTION OFFICER retariat Buildings, '1 . The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, S Hyderabad, State of Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Khairathabad lvlandal, Hyderabad, 4. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal corporation, Hyderabad, Tankbund Road, HYderabad.

5. One CC to SRI M.SALEEIVI Advocate IOPUCI 6 One CC to SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] B. Two CD CoPies r BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 ,.. 1l'-.. I ... .) ,, :. :. .1r 10 tri 20ffi ORDER WP.No.22627 o12020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t\ l )C