1. Pr'rthviraj Chouhan v. The Ardhra Pradesh/Telangana Housing Board

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRIruSTTCE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.39 67 of20l5 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Loxmi Noruyano Alishetty) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order, dated

06.06.2013, passed in LGC.No.10 of 2000 onthe file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court').

2. Heard Sri G.Allabakash, leamed counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel for Housing Board, appearing for the respondent No.l.

3. The t-acts of the case, shorn off unnecessar) details, as a,,,erred in the afhdavit hled in support of the Writ Petition, are that the petitioners' father was the owner of land admeasuring 164 square yards in Sy.No.59 of Bapu Nagar, near Sanje ev Reddy Nagar, H,vderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject propefty') having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 18.04. 1979. When the District Collector, I{yderabad, sought to acquire the subject prop€rty along with neighbouring land' the 2 AKS,J&LNA,J WP No.3967 o12015 owner ofneighbouring land challenged the acquisition proceedings vide W.P.No.7384 of 1983 and this Court allowed the said Writ Petition quashing the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, MCH issued notification under Section 3 of the Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, seeking to acquire subject property along with neighbouring land and the same was challenged by the petitioners and others betbre this Court by filing W.P.Nos.13183 and 12127 of 1988 and this Court vide common order dated

08.11.1988 allowed the said Writ Petitions quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings therein.

3.1. It was fufther stated that while the things stood thus, respondent No. I constructed a compound wall around the subject property in the month ol November, 1995, claiming that the same belongs to it. It rvas lurther stated that in fact, respondent No.l had acquired an extent olAcs.i.l4 guntas in Sy'No.59 of Yousufguda and developed a colony by name S.R. Colony and in the said process, it has utilized Acs.4.25 guntas of land. Therefore, respondent No.l has no right over the subject property and thus, the petitioners sought to declare respondent No. 1 as 'land grabber'. ,, ) AKSJ&LNA,J wP.No 3967 oJ20t5

4. Before the Special Court, respondent No.l filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners and contended that at its request, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, acquired land to an extent of Acs.60.00 in Sy.Nos.56A to E, 58 to 63 of Yousufguda Vitlage and also lands in Sy.Nos.56, 6l and' 64 of Ameerpet Village and in Sy.Nos.l06 and 107 of Bahaloolkhanguda Village by duly following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an Award to that effect was passed on 10.04.1962. As per the said Award, respondent No.l paid compensation amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to the land owners and possession of the land was handed over to it on

14.04.1962 b-v- duly fixing the boundaries of the land and thereafter, residential cotony consisting of A, B and C type houses was constructed.

4.1 . Respondent No.l further contended that out of Acs. 14.03 guntas in Sy.No.59, an extent of Acs.3.14 guntas was handed over to A.P. Housing Board on 14.04.1962 and ever since then, it has been in possession of the same. However, in the remaining extent of Acs.10.29 guntas, there were huts and houses, therefore, same was not acquired and accordingly, not included in the Award. It 4 AKS,J&LNA,J WP.No.3967 oJ20t 5 was further contended that in the said Acs.3.l4 guntas in Sy.No.59, respondent No. 1 constructed A type houses and an extent of 2lg7 square yards of land was left in between National Highway and the colony for commercial purpose; that out of 2lg7 square yards, respondent No. I constructed cornpound wall covering 1062 square yards leaving an extent of I 125 square yards and compound wall could not be constructed covering the said area of ll25 square yards in view of status quo orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.l5459 of 1991. 4.2. Respondent No. 1 further contended that one Rakesh Kumar Sataliya filed suit in O.S.No.tggg of 1993 againsr it on the hle of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction in respect of plot Nos. t and 6 to an extent of 174 a.'d, 172 square yards in Sy.phodi No.59i I in Sy.No.59 of yousufguda, claiming to be owner of property, however, the said suit was dismissed for default on I I . I 0.200-j. Therefore, respondent No.l constructed a compound w.all to safbguard thc land and as such, the allegation that respondent No. t is a ,land grabber, is false. It is also contended that the petitioners have no right, title or interest over the subject propeltv and prar.ed to disntiss thc case. ) AKS,J&LNA,J ,1P.No.3967 ol20l5

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues:- "(l) Whether the applicants have title to the application schedule properry'? (2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondent is true, valid and binding? (3) Whether the respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? (4) To what relie/? "

6. Before the Special Court, the petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No. I as P.W-l and also examined a third party as P.W-2 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-ll. Insofar as respondent No. I is concerred, it has adopted the evidence adduced in LGC.No.22 ol 1996 in which Exs.B-l to B-15 were marked.

7. The Special Court, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, observed that P.W-2 during his cross-examination admitted that Ex.A-1-sale deed was executed in the year 1979, whereas the Housing Board acquired the land in the year t962. I'he Special Court further observed that a Commissioner r.r,as appointed to identi! the subject property, who in tum, submitted a report, as per which, the subject property is 6 AKS,J&LNA,J wP.No 3967 of 2015 situated within the land acquired by respondent No. 1. The petitioners did not file any objections to the commissioner,s report and except saying that the Commissioner,s report is incorrect, no steps were taken by the petitioners to prove that the Commissioner's report is false.

7.1. The Special Court has also observed that rhe boundaries of the subject property as mentioned in the Concise statement and the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-r-sare deed by virtue of which the petitioners are claiming ownership are different. It has further obselved that respondent No.l constructed different types of houses and Ieft off certain portion of land fbr roads, common usage and amenities; that the MCH constructcd a Contnrunity Hall near the National Highway road on sourhem side; that the subject property is adjoining the said Community t{all and therefore, the subject property is part and parcel ol land acquired by respondent No.l; and that the sale deed dated 1g.04. 1979 relied upon by the petitioners was executed much later to the acquisition of tand by respondent No. 1 and in the abser-rce o [- any other evidence to establish that the subjecr property is outside the acquired land by respondent No.l, Ex.A-l-sale deed cannot be raken as a genuine 7 AKS.J&LNA,J WP No.3967 of2015 document. By observing thus, the Special Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish their title to the subject property and accordingly, held issue No.1 against them and in the light of finding on issue No. l, the Special Court, on issue No.3 held that respondent No. t is not a 'land grabber' within the meaning of Act XII of 1982.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No. 1-Housing Board acquired only an extent of Acs.3.l4 gunlas of land out of Acs. 14.03 guntas in Sy.No.59, however, it has taken over Acs.4.26 guntas, thus, respondent No.l had taken Ac.1.12 guntas ofexcess land and no compensation was paid to the said extent. He turther contended that when the Govemment acquired an extent ol Acs. 10.20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.58, 59 and 60 under Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, the petitioners along another filed two Writ "vith Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.l2t17 and 13183 of 1988 for deletion of land admeasuring 3344 square yards including the subject property and this Court vide conrnlon order dated 08.11.1988 allowed the said Writ Petitions. He further contended that GHMC prepared a plan for slum compensation paylnent narnely Boundary plan of 8 AKS,J&LN,4,J WP No 3967 of 2015 \ Bapunagar, vide proceedings dated 07.06.2000 and the subject property is covered within Bapunagar slum area, therefore, respondent No.l has no right or interest over the subject property. Learned counsel further contended that the report submitted by the Commissioner before the Special Court is incorrect and the Special Court committed grave error in dismissing the case solely based on the Commissioner's report. Leamed counsel finally prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Courr.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.l contended that the Special Court has rightly disrnissed the LGC filed by the petitioners by duly taking inro considerarion rhe oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Hc specificaly refen-ed to the observations of the Special Court u,ith regard to the report of the Commissioner, wherein it is clearly ntentioned that the subject property is within the land acquired bv respondent No. l. He also pointed out that the petitioners failed to place any evidence to substantiate their claim that respondent No. t grabbed the subject property. He further contended that the I tousing Board had acquired vast extent of land by duly initiating land acquisition proceedings and an Award was passed and cornpensation as 9 AKSJ&LNA.J wP rr'o 3967 of 2015 determined in the Award was also paid to the land owners. H€ further contended that the alleged sale deed-Ex.A-l relied upon by the petitioners is much later to the acquisition of land, therefore, the Special Court has rightly dismissed the LGC and as such, this Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liabte to be dismissed.

10. Perusal of record would show that rcspondent No. I acquired an extent of Acs.60.00 of tand in Yousufguda, Ameerpet and Bahalootkhanguda Villages, which includes Acs.3.14 guntas of land in Sy.No.59 of Yousufguda by duty tbllowing the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an Award was passed to that effect on 10.04. t962 and compensation amount of Rs.4,80,000/- was also paid to the land owners. Thereafter, respondent No.l constructed A, B and Cl type houses in the acquired land and a certain part of land was lett open for public amenities, roads, etc; that when respondent No. I constructed a compound wall around part of the acquired land in Sy.No.59, the petitioners herein filed LCC contending that their lather purchased an extent of land admeasuring t64 squale yards under registered sale deed dated 18.04.1979. Thc Special Court appointed a Commissioner to identily thc subjcct propt:rt-y'' and thc acquired l0 AKS,J&LNA.J ttP.No.j967 oJ2015 land. Pursuant to the same, the Commissioner, i.e., Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records submitted a repod, as per which, the subject property is situated within the land acquired by respondent No.l. It. Perusal of record further discloses that respondent No. 1 acquired land in the year 1962, whereas the petitioners' father purchased the subject property in the year 1979 which is much after acquisition of land by respondent No.l. The Speciat Court recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners except stating that the Commissioner's report is incorrect, have not chosen to take any steps to disprove the same and further, no material is placed on record to prove their claim. The Special Court had also recorded finding that the petitioners failed to prove title ro rhe sub-lect property.

12. [t is relevant to refer to Section l0 of Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which reads as follows:- " Burden of proof:- Where in any proceedings under this Act, u land is allegt:d to have been grabbed, and such land is prima fac'ie proved to be the land owned by the Govcrnntenl u' ht' e private person, the Special Courl or ct.s the case u AKS,J&LNA.J wP No.3967 of 2015 may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alkged to have grabbed the land is a land-grabber and thz bwden of proving thot the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person."

13. Section l0 of the Land Grabbing ,{ct mandates that the applicant before the Special Court or Tribunal has to prima facie prove his title to the application schedule property and once the initial burden of proving prima facie title is discharged by the applicant, then the burden would shift onto the respondents before the Tribunal or the Special Court to prove that he/she is not a land grabber and he/she is validly ho{ding possession ofthe land.

14. In fact, the subject property is situated in Sy.No.59 of Bapunagar, near Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, whereas the common order, dated 08.11.1988, passed in W.P.Nos. 13183 and 12127 of 1988 (Ex.A-3), which is relied upon by the peritioners, is in respect of property in Sy.No.59 of Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Thus, the aforesaid order passed in W.P.Nos.13l83 and 12127 of I 988 is ofno relevance or use to the petitioners 12 AKS,J&LNA,J t|/P.No.3967 of20t s

15. [n the present case, the petitioners failed to discharge the initial burden of proving their prima facie title over the subject [and. In such an event, there is no necessity even to examine the o\ nership of respondent No. 1 .

16. [n the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the report submitted by the Commissioner that the subject property forms part of land acquired by respondent No.l and in the absence of any rebuttal to the Commissioner's report by the petitioners, the various other contentions raised by the petitioners need not be gone into. The Special Court has also recorded a specific finding that the petitioners flailed to prove their title to the subject property and also recorded a finding that respondent No.1 is not a land grabber.

17. In the light of the above discussion and foregoing reasons and further, as the petitioners failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same

18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. l3 )KS, J& LNA, J vP.No.J967 oJ20t j t9 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L. LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGI BU R SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI G.ALLABAKASH, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI C.BUCH| BABU, SC FOR TSHB tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRt A.K.JAYA PRAKASH RAO, SC FOR TSHB {OpUCl 4. Two CD Copies (tY BSR BS I HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 ORDER WP.No.3967 of 2015 ( c f, o <t 1t{L lFrlc 0 6 I,ua 2U25 L f. t Dl:STTA ,(. rC.$I.rr -}. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS {,n I t, Ls 2- I z-s 4cDieo'