G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ALL the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment, since the questions of law raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience and to appreciate the events leading to the filing of the respective writ petitions, brief facts are narrated hereunder: in all these writ petitions, Sree Pancha murthy Co-op. House Building Society limited is the writ petitioner. WP No. 11200 of 1998 was filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring an extent of 5 acres of land held by the petitioner in s. No. 129 of 105 now treated as a part of ts No. 1/1/1, Block-H, Ward No. 10 of shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, hyderabad District as having been handed over to the 5th respondent A. P. State Non-Resident Indians Re-Investment Corporatin limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as anrich) as illegal and without jurisdiction and for consequential direction not to disturb the petitioners from the enjoyment of the aforesaid lands. Writ Petition No. 19297 of 1998 was filed by the same society seeking writ of mandamus to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of lay out dated 15-4-1998 and 16-6-1998 and sanction the same in accordance with the prescribed procedure over an extent of 5 acres of land in S. No. 129/195 of erstwhile Shiakpet village, now at Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, which is identified by the Government as t. S. No. 1/1/1 Part Block-H, Ward-10, shaikpet revenue village corresponding to new S. No. 403 without insisting upon the production of no-objection certificate from the Hyderabad Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, certificate and Registration, Hyderabad. WP No. 21431 of 1998 is filed by the co-operative society seeking writ of mandamus declaring an extent of Ac. 2. 38 gts. held by the petitioners in S. No. 129/100 now treated as part of T. S. No. 24/1/1, Block-H, ward No. 9, of Shaikpet village, Golconda mandal, Hyderabad district as having been handed over to the 5th respondent treating it as a Government land is illegal and without jurisdiction and not binding on the petitioner and consequently seeks direction not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. WP No. 23217 of 1998 filed by the co-operative society seeking writ of mandamus challenging the communication declaring an extent of 10 acres of land held by the petitioners in S. No. l29/135/a now treated as part of T. S. No. 1/1/1 of block-H, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet village, golconda mandal, Hyderabad district as having been handed over to the 4th respondent treating it as a Government land as absolutely illegal and not binding on the petitioner and consequently relief not to disturb the petitioners from the aforesaid lands. In WP Nos. 21431 of 1998 and 23217 of 1998; the petitioners also sought alternatve prayer seeking writ of mandamus directing the Government or its authorities including the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer or any other authority under Government have no jurisdiction or authority, right, possession or even lawful claim to interfere with the right, title and interest and possession and enjoyment of the petitioner society in respect of the land bearing s. Nos. 120/105, 129/35/1 and 129/100. ( 3 ) CLAIMS and counter-claims in wp Nos. 11200 of 1998 and 19297 of 1998 : the land in queston is related to an extent of 5 acres of land comprising of S. No. 129/105 of Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, hyderabad district. It was originally assigned to and purchased by one Mr. Mir Hassan all Khan from Sarfekhas authorities of the erstwhile Nizam Government in the year 1340 Fasli equivalent to 1930-31. By letter No. 944 dated 22nd Bahman 1340 fasli in file No. 149/13 of Laoni 40 "the awal Talukdar" (Collector) District Atraf badla (now Hyderabad District) of sufekhas Mubarak communicated to the tahsildar, West and South that an extent of 5 acres of land in S. No. 129 was granted on patta in favour of Mir Hassan All Khan on receipt of Rs. 500/- and that the extent of 5 acres of land shall be converted into non-agricultural land after regular sub-division. The Tahsildar was directed to deliver the possession to Mir Hassan Ali Khan. Subsequently, the Assistant Superintendent, settlement by letter No. 18 dated 29th isfandar 1340 Fasli in File No. 18/13/40/ fasli wrote to the Tahsildar that the land was assigned on patta to Mir Hassan AH khan and the said extent has been sub-divided and tippens were also made for making the village boundaries map. Subsequently, the Assistant Superintendent, settlement by letter No. 18 dated 29th isfandar 1340 Fasli in File No. 18/13/40/ fasli wrote to the Tahsildar that the land was assigned on patta to Mir Hassan AH khan and the said extent has been sub-divided and tippens were also made for making the village boundaries map. In vasul Baki 1340 Fasli an extent of 5 acres of land comprised in S. No. 129/105 was shown as assigned land in favour of Mir hassan AH Khan. The said Mir Hassan AH khan remained in possession of the land. He sold the said extent of land in favour of mechineni Seetha Rama Rao by a registered document dated 20th Azua, 1366 Fasli (equivalent to 27-9-1947) for a sum of rs. 5,000/ -. The name of Mechineni Seetha rama Rao was also mutated in all the records showing his name as owner. The said (sic name) was also entered in Powthi Bahies and he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land for a period of 27 years and sold the same to the petitioner society. Mechineni Seetha Rama Rao also paid the non-agricultural tax in respect of the said land. By document dated 12-2-1974 the said extent of 5 acres of land was sold to the petitioner society @ Rs. 6,500/- per acre and the document was executed in favour of mantena Adisesha Raju and 5 others representing the society. Thus the Society became owner and possessor of the said extent of 5 acres of land. Even after the death of Mechineni Seetha Rama Rao, a legatee under Will Mr. M. Srivatsava Rao also endorsed this transaction and also executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the Society to get all permissions and other necessary things in favour of the petitioner society. It is also stated that the petitioner society paid non-agricultural tax and from 1963 to 1974 it had paid a sum of Rs. 2,640/- and from 1974 to 1993, it had paid a sum of rs. 24,391/- and from 1993 to 1996 it had paid a sum of Rs. 12,240/ -. A further sum of Rs. 14,140/- was demanded by the Mandal revenue Officer and the same was also paid. The Society with an intention to get the lay out sanction applied to the Municipal corporation. 24,391/- and from 1993 to 1996 it had paid a sum of Rs. 12,240/ -. A further sum of Rs. 14,140/- was demanded by the Mandal revenue Officer and the same was also paid. The Society with an intention to get the lay out sanction applied to the Municipal corporation. But however, a letter was issued asking the petitioner to obtain the corresponding town survey number in respect of old S. No. 129/105. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue officer for furnishing necessary information regarding availability of co-relative map after giving new T. S. Numbers. After the said letter Mandal Revenue Officer by letter dated 29-1-1998 informed that the land shown in S. No. 129/105 was identified in t. S. No. 1/1/1 part Block-1, Ward-10, correlating to S. No. 403. Thus the existence of Survey Number was established and subsequently it was identified as T. S. No. 1/1/1 part, Block-H of Shaikpet village and the corresponding S. No. 403. It is submitted by the petitioner that the predecesors in title have been in continuous possession right from 1931 and that the communication of the Mandal Revenue Officer declaring that the said land is a Government land which was allotted to ANRICH-5th respondent is wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is further stated that the respondents in the Gazette no. 84, dated 9-9-1981 acknowledged and found that the said extent of 5 acres of land in S. No. 129/105 was allotted to Mir hassan AH Khan, who figured at S1. No. 14. Thus, it is stated that the name of Mir hassan AH Khan and Mechineni Seetha rama Rao were being carried out in the revenue records. But, however, the survey authorities appeared to have conducted survey of the land without notice to the society or predecessors-in-title and revised survey numbers and boundaries are not binding on the petitioners as no notice was issued to them. Hence the society sought appropriate direction. ( 4 ) A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is almost common in all the other writ petitions. With regard to the averments some of the events have been narrated which are as follows : ( 5 ) SHAIKPET village of Hyderabad district was formerly Surfekhas village. Hence the society sought appropriate direction. ( 4 ) A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is almost common in all the other writ petitions. With regard to the averments some of the events have been narrated which are as follows : ( 5 ) SHAIKPET village of Hyderabad district was formerly Surfekhas village. After merger of Shiakpet village in Diwani in 1389 Fasli (1949 AD), the administration of village was transferred to the control of the Government and all the records were made over to the Government. The initial survey of the Shaikpet village was commenced in 1326 Fasli (1920 AD) and the same was implemented in 1330 Fasli (1920 AD ). S. No. 129 measuring an extent of 3,288 gts. was shown as Government land which was locally known as "kancha tatti Khana". In the year 1331 Fasli (1921 AD), a supplementary sethwar was issued creating S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10 whereas S. Nos. 129/1 measuring Ac. 3094. 39 gts and S. Nos. 1229/2 to 129/10 together with measuring Ac. 193. 03 gts. In 1334-35 fasli (1924-1925 AD) S. No. 352 measuring ac. 63-24 gts. was deleted and included in the adjoining viallage of Yellareddyguda. In 1346 Fasli (1936 AD), a supplementary sethwar was issued renumbering S. No. 129/1 as S. No. 403 and S. No. 404 deleting s. No. 129/2 to S. No. 129/10, by way of creating new Survey numbers and numbering as S. No. 353 to S. No. 402. That in between period from 1337 Fasli (1927 A. D.) to 1341 fasli (1931 A. D.) assignments were made by Avval Talukdar (District Collector) out of S. No. 129/1 and S. Nos. 129/11 to 129/84, 129/86 and 129/87 were created. Revised survey was conducted in 1349 Fasli (1942 AD) onwards and completed in 1352 Fasli (1942 AD ). S. No. 129/11 to 129/87 said to have been assigned revision S. Nos. in the Revision Books, but the said revision Survey was not implemented in the Revenue Records. The Town Survey was conducted from 1964 to 1971 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and boundaries Act, 1923 and a notification was issued under Section 6 (1) of the said act and it was published in the Gazette dated 6-8-1977. in the Revision Books, but the said revision Survey was not implemented in the Revenue Records. The Town Survey was conducted from 1964 to 1971 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and boundaries Act, 1923 and a notification was issued under Section 6 (1) of the said act and it was published in the Gazette dated 6-8-1977. Anybody is aggrieved by the final Gazette notification was entitled to file a civil suit with regard to the town survey numbers, within a period of three years from the date of the notification. Under section 13 of the act nobody filed civil suit within the said period. The land in question is in TS No. 1/l/l (Part) Block H, Ward No. 10 and is classified as Government land. Hence the entry became final. ( 6 ) IT is further submitted in the counter that differnet persons were claiming the Government land under alleged (35) sarfekhas assignment. The Government in memo dated 28-2-1981 directed the Collector to enquire into the claims of 35 assignments made by Sarfekhas authorities during 1340 Fasli (1938 AD ). Notices were issued during May to August, 1981, but they could not be served as the concerned parties and their correct addresse were not available. Therefore, they published a notice in the Gazette dated 9-9-1981 and also local news papers dated 2-9-1981 inviting objections. The alleged files in which sarfekhas assignments were made were not available in the office of the Commissioner, land Revenue. But, however, some of the files traced in State Archives were found to be irregularly maintained creating a doubt. Hence, the authorities decided to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures of the sarfekhas authorities found in files obtained from the State Archives by comparsion with collectorate files. The matter was referred to the Government Examine of Questioned documents. The said Examiner infomred that the signatures of Sarfekhas authorities found on file obtained from the State archives are forged and bogus. It is further stated that as per the revision book, s. No. 129/105 is burial ground situated on the southern side of Anthaganikunta at Road no. 13 of Banjara Hills of Shaikpet village. To the said notice issued, the petitioner nor any person claiming interest has filed objections. A detailed report was sent to the government on 5-2-1983 for rejection of the claim of Mir Hassan AH Khan. 13 of Banjara Hills of Shaikpet village. To the said notice issued, the petitioner nor any person claiming interest has filed objections. A detailed report was sent to the government on 5-2-1983 for rejection of the claim of Mir Hassan AH Khan. Accordingly, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 942 dated 23-6-1983 rejecting the claim of Mir Hassan Ali Khan. In the meanwhile, requisition was received from the 5th respondent ANRICH for allotment of certain lands at the rate of market value and the same was handed over to the 5th respondent on 17-12-1992, against which the petitioner filed another Writ Petition 19297 of 1998. Thus, the petitioner filed aforesaid two Writ Petitions. Thus, it is the case of the Government in the counter that he is trying to establish his title to 5 acres of land in S. No. 129/105 which is a Government property and Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that the petitioner played fraud and created bogus assignment of Sarfekhas authorities. The so called Powthi Bahies are bogus and fabricated and it is not a statutory record. With regard to the payment of non-agricultural tax, it is stated that the officers, who were involved in issuing the said tax receipts, enquiries were initiated issuing bogus receipts. Therefore, the notices issued under non-agricultural assessment Act have no legal value. The Municipal Corporation has rightly insisted for producing town survey correlates to S. No. 129/105 and the communication of the Mandal Revenue officer stating that the co-related S. No. TS no. 1/1/1 part Block-H, Ward 10, referred to s. No. 103 of Shaikpet village and it is a government land is correct. The application of the petitioner for sanction of the layout was rejected as the property in question was Government property. It is also stated that aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in batch of Writ Petition 9414 of 1992 and batch, Government preferred an appeal in WA No. 815 of 1993 and Batch Since the learned Judges differed in their views, the matter was referred to the third Judge, who held that the learned single Judge ought not to have enquired into a disputed question of title, possession and adverse possession. The subject matter in the batch of writ petitions is the property situated in old S. No. 129 of Shaikpet village. The subject matter in the batch of writ petitions is the property situated in old S. No. 129 of Shaikpet village. It is also stated that apart from allotment of 30 acres of land to ANRICH an extent of one acre was also allotted to Water Works department and it was handed over to the water Works Department on 17-4-1998. It is further stated that writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners are seeking civil remedy of injunction in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Incidentally, it is also stated that the petitioner has filed the other WP nos. 21431 of 1998 and 23217 of 1998 in all involving Ac. 17. 33 guntas and they may be heard together and disposed of by a common order. ( 7 ) COUNTERS were also filed by the water Works Department stating that the Government have handed over one acre of land and the said extent did not form part of 5 acres of land referred to in the writ petitions. Therefore, no relief can be claimed as against this respondent. It is also stated that they did not encroach in to the subject matter land. ( 8 ) 5th respondent-ANRICH filed a counter stating that an extent of 30 acres of land in S. No. 346/l (403), New Shaikpet village was handed over to the Corporaton on 17-12-1982. The said land belongs to the Government and therefore, no relief can be claimed. Details of WP No. 23217 of 1998: the petitioner in this case also the same co-operative house building society. Extent invlved in this writ petition is 10 acres. According to the averments an extent of 10 acres of land situated in s. No. 129/35/1 of Shaikpet village was originally allotted and purchased by Ravikal venkatram Reddy from Sarfekhas authorities in the year 1930-31. The same letters in support of the title as referred to in the earlier writ petition are referred. The land was assigned to Venkatram Reddy on receipt of Rs. 1,400/- as consideration. The same letters in support of the title as referred to in the earlier writ petition are referred. The land was assigned to Venkatram Reddy on receipt of Rs. 1,400/- as consideration. He remained in possession of the said land and thereafter he sold to it to Mechineni Seetha rama Rao, who purchased the other land an extent of 5 acres covered by the earlier writ petition sale deed dated 10-8-1948 in favour of his mother Mechineni Seetha Rama Rao and Machineni Ananthamma and their names were accordingly mutated in the revenue records including Powthi Bahies. After a period of 27 years, they sold the said land on 12-2-1974 and 14-3-1974 to the said society. All other details are same as referred to in the earlier writ petition. ( 9 ) THE contentions in the counter filed by the respondent is the same as filed in the earlier writ petition. ( 10 ) WP No. 21431 of 1998 relates to ac. 2. 33 guntas situated in S. No. 129/100. The title is traced stating taht the said land was purchased by Mr. Moulvi Khasim Ali, son of Mohsin from the Sarfekhas authorities in 1930-31. The said land was sold for a sum of Rs. 463-12 Annas. The said land was sold to Mechineni Seetha Rama Rao under a sale deed dated 18-5-1947 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. Necessary entries were affected in the concerned revenue records and in 1974, which was sold through document dated 21-2-1974 in favour of the society for a sum of Rs. 16,950/ -. ( 11 ) AFTER narrating the averments in the writ petitions and also in the counters, the following particulars could be gathered: that the petitioner Housing Society purchased a total extent of Ac. 17. 33 guntas comprised of the following detail; ( 21 ) ON the other hand, the learned advocate-General submits that the relief cannot be granted under Article 226 of constitution of India, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum or civil court to adjudicate its rights. 17. 33 guntas comprised of the following detail; ( 21 ) ON the other hand, the learned advocate-General submits that the relief cannot be granted under Article 226 of constitution of India, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum or civil court to adjudicate its rights. He also submits that the assignments granted in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners were found to be forged on the basis of the information furnished by the government Examiner of Questioned documents and therefore, the assignments were declared as null and void and the lands were resumed and allotted to various other departments, as the Government is the owner of the property. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners were granted assignments of Sarfekhas lands on payment of market value. Though it is stated by the learned Advocate-General that the assignments are forged, but at the same time, the fact remains that there were assignments in favour of these persons. As already stated original assignee in respect of 5 acres of land in S. No. 129/105 of shaikpet villae was one Mir Hassan AH khan Son of Wahid AH Khan. He traced out his title to the proceedings dated 29th Isfandar 1340 Fasli corresponding to 22nd Behman 1340 Fasli in file No. 149/13. Similarly, in respect of Mr. Khasim Ali, son of Mohin Ali, the assignment was made on 21 Behman 1340 Fasli corresponding to 25-12-1930. In respect of Mr. Ravikal venkatram Reddy, he purchased the land from Sarfekhas authorities on 20th Behman 1340 Fasli equivalent to 24-12-1930. The extents referred to above in respect of the aforesaid persons was sub-divided with reference to the boundaries. Thus, all the three persons were in possession and enjoyment of the land ever since the allotment. The said land was purchased by mechineni Seetha Rama Rao on 29-9-1947 under a Registered Sale Deed from Mir hassan Ali Khan and the same was purchased by the society under an agreement dated 22-7-1974. Similarly, the land belong to the Ravikal Venkatram Reddy was purchased by Mechineni Seetha Rama rao and Smt. Ananthamma under two documents dated 12-6-1948 for an extent of ac. 5. 06 guntas. Subsequently, they were again sold to the Society under two documents dated 12-2-1974 and 14-3-1974. The name of Mechineni Seetha Rama rao and the predecessors-in-title were also entered in the revenue records. 5. 06 guntas. Subsequently, they were again sold to the Society under two documents dated 12-2-1974 and 14-3-1974. The name of Mechineni Seetha Rama rao and the predecessors-in-title were also entered in the revenue records. In 1939 Fasli, Wasool Baqui Register, the name of Mr. Ravikal Venkatram Reddy in column No. 3 (Actual Cultivator), was mentioned in respect of S. No. 129/1 (Revised as S. No. 129/35/1) for an extent of ac. 10-00. Similarly the name of Mohd. Khasim was shown in respect of S. No. 129/1 (Revised as S. No. 129/35/1) for an extent of 2 acres and the name of Mr. Mir hassan Ali Khan was shown in respect of s. No. 129/1 (Revised as S. No. 129/105) for an extent of 5 acres of land. In the sethwar in respect of Shaikpet village similar details were mentioned. In column No. 2, it was further stated that it is a patta land. Even in Powthi Bahies also the similar details are contained. Basing on these documents, it is submitted that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners by Sarfekhas authorities cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to any of the provisions of the law. ( 23 ) THE learned senior Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench and submitted that in respect of one of such assignees out of 35 Sarfekhas assignees by name Mr. Jqffar ah Shareef when the proceedings under the land Encroachment Act were sought to be initiated against successors-in-title, the division Bench of this Court in a common judgment in Writ Petition No. 1963 of 1983 and Writ Appeal No. 188 of 1983 quashed the proceedings under the provisions of the land Encroachment Act and allowed the successors-in-interest to undertake further construction of the multistoried building. The principles decided by the Division Bench aptly to the case on hand. The decision of the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in merit Enterprises s case (supra ). The judgment has been perused by me. The government issued memo dated 28-2-1981 directing the Collector to enquire into assignment purported to have been made by the Sarfekhas. Consequently, the Special deputy Collector issued notice published in the Gazette dated 9-9-1981. The judgment has been perused by me. The government issued memo dated 28-2-1981 directing the Collector to enquire into assignment purported to have been made by the Sarfekhas. Consequently, the Special deputy Collector issued notice published in the Gazette dated 9-9-1981. It contained 35 names including the names of three assignees referred to in these writ petitions, who are figuring at Sawmill No. 14, 27 and 33 and one Mr. Jaffar Ali Shareef at Sl. No. 5. The said Jqffar Ali Shareef has sold the property to various persons and in turn it was changed number of hands. Ultimately, some of the purchasers applied to Municipal Corporation for construction of multi-storied building and the same was also approved. At that point of time, notice was issued by the government under Section 7 of the A. P. Land Encroachment Act and the same was challenged in WP No. 1963 of 1983 and wa No. 183 of 1983. Similar averments as contained in the present writ petitions were made. The Government filed counter which was referred to in the said judgment which is extracted below: "the 2nd respondent, who is the Joint collector, Hyderabad District, has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating : Shaikpet village of golconda taluk was formerly a Sarfekhas village and after the merger of sarfekhas in 1358 Fasli the village vested in Khalsa (Government ). The 1st survey of Shaikpet village was done in 1326 Fasli and Sethwar (Survey Register) was prepared in 1330 Fasli. According to the Sethwar Survey No. 129 measures ac. 3,228-29 guntas. Supplementary sethwar was issued in 1331 Fasli and survey No. 129 was divided into 10 sub-divisions from S. No. 129/1 to 129/10. Again in 1346 Fasli survey No. 129 with all the sub-divisions was deleted and new survey numbers 353 to 404 were given keeping the total extent in-tact. During Sarfekhas regime some assignments were made in Survey no. 129/11 to 129/87. A revision survey was again done for Shaikpet village in 1352 Fasli, but it was not implemented in the records. The revision survey map, which is available, is helpful to identify the lands on ground. During Sarfekhas regime some assignments were made in Survey no. 129/11 to 129/87. A revision survey was again done for Shaikpet village in 1352 Fasli, but it was not implemented in the records. The revision survey map, which is available, is helpful to identify the lands on ground. As there were some disputes in the lands at Banjara Hills of Shaikpet village, due to private claims, in the year 1981 government ordered appointment of a special Grade Deputy Collector for identification and demarcation of government and Private lands in Banjara hills area. The Government instructed inquiry into 35 individuals, who are purported to have been assigned lands by Sarfekhas, which have neither been brought to revenue records nor survey records authenticate the fact so far. Accordingly, notices were issued to the 35 individuals. Sri Jaffer Ali Shareef is one of the 35 individuals-assignees to whom Sarfekhas purported to have assigned land. The said original list of 35 assignees was referred to the Government Examiner of questioned Documents, Government of india, Hyderabad, who opined through letter dated 29-5-1982 that it is a forged document. As such, it is stated, Jaffer ah Shareef did not get any right, interest or title over the land in S. No. 129/6 measuring Ac. 6. 20 guntas. Pursuant to the issue of notices and publication in papers, Karamath Ali had put in a petition on 10-9-1981 stating that he purchased the land Ac. 6. 20 guntas in S. No. 129/6 from Jaffer AH Shareef. He had also filed as many as 9 documents along with his petition. The enquiry officer seems to have held that the list of assignees was proved as a forged document and therefore, Jaffer Ali Shareef one of the assignees in the list, gets no right, interest or title over the said land. So far as the khasra Pahani of 1954-55 is concern, the comment is that it does not indicate the presence of any such survey number like 129/6. On the contrary it shows survey No. 403 against which the name of Jaffer AH is noted is classified as government Poramboke. Therefore, it is stated, Jaffer AH was only an encroacher. It is further stated that in the last page of khasra Pahani, in which the names of unauthorised occupants are mentioned, including Jaffer AH Shareef, are found in different ink and different writing. Therefore, it is stated, Jaffer AH was only an encroacher. It is further stated that in the last page of khasra Pahani, in which the names of unauthorised occupants are mentioned, including Jaffer AH Shareef, are found in different ink and different writing. With reference to the 9th document, copy of the judgment in a Criminal Case, it is stated that it was held that this judgment in a criminal matter does not render any help for determining the claim of ownership and that from this judgment karramat AH cannot derive any title. The sum and substance of the whole matter is that the deed of assignment is a forged one and therefore later transfers cannot be given any weight in the matter of title to the property. (emphasis added) so far as the permit granted by the municipal Corporation is concerned it is stated that the permit was granted irrespective of any ownership or title and therefore such a permit does not convey any right, title or ownership of the government land to the petitioner-firm. Consequently, the payment of taxes or building permit, etc. , does not convey any rights over the Government land. Since the construction commenced as illegal and without any right, interest or title to the premises, the action of the respondents 3 to 5 taken under the provisions of the Encroachment Act is just and proper. " in this regard it is to be noted that the government placed relevant records before the Division Bench and the Division Bench recorded the following findings: "the relevant records were placed before the Court. At the very outset, in our view, it is better to refer to the proceedings taken by the Government to identify the Government lands in Shaikpet village on the basis of the complaints received by it. In bur view, this point alone would be very clinching to decide the entire issue before us. In the counter filed by the Government in paragraph-3, it is referred to that there were some disputes in the lands at Banjara Hills of shaikpet village due to private claims in the year 1981. Therefore, Government ordered appointment of a Special Grade deputy Collector for identification and demarcation of Government and private lands in Banjara Hills area. The government in their memorandum no. 1834/q2/79 Revenue Department dated 28-2-1981 issued instructions to enquire into the claims of 35 individuals. Therefore, Government ordered appointment of a Special Grade deputy Collector for identification and demarcation of Government and private lands in Banjara Hills area. The government in their memorandum no. 1834/q2/79 Revenue Department dated 28-2-1981 issued instructions to enquire into the claims of 35 individuals. It is now stated across the bar that after the enquiry is completed, a map has been prepared in the year 1982 identifying the Government and Patta lands and also those lands which have been recognised as lands that are accepted as assigned lands. The said map is placed before us. From the said map, it is pointed out that the premises in question is bearing S. No. 129/75/d5 and it is in white colour, indicating that it is patta land, (emphasis supplied) therefore, the lands in which the present constructions are going on are not government lands, but the patta lands. The fact that the present lands are patta lands is also admitted by the respondents in paragraph-2 of the counter. In paragraph-2 it is stated: "during Sarfekhas regime, some assignments were made in Sy. No. 129/11 to Sy. No. 129/87 which are patta lands. The Revision survey of Shaikpet village was done in 1352 Fasli, but it was not implemented in the records and the revision survey map is available which is helpful to identify the lands on ground. With reference to the Wasol Baqui i. e. , correlation statement, the Revision wasool Baqui shows Sy. Nos. 129/11 to 129/87 which are patta lands which are also recorded in the Revenue records. " thus, Survey No. 129/75 is a patta land. This is clearly admitted in the counter. The map prepared in the year 1982 to identify the lands also indicates that these are patta lands. The further demarcation of Dl to D5 are sub-divisions of Survey no. 129/75 and it is in D5 plot that the petitioners are in possession and it is in this plot that the constructions are going on. The learned Counsel submits that even according to the case of the respondents the land in S. No. l29/75/d5 in which the petitioners constructions are going on is admittedly a patta land, and therefore, no notice under Section 7 could have been issued in the face of this admission. Therefore, it is contended taht the isue of notice is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. Therefore, it is contended taht the isue of notice is unwarranted and the same deserves to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that this S. No. 129/75 has to be treated as a differnet number with reference to the Town Planning Area. But, nothing is placed before this Court to indicate that it refers to municipal number. The very scheme of preparation of the map was to identify the lands with reference to survey numbers to find to which are patta lands and which are Government lands and which are the assigned lands during the Sarfekhas period, etc. The surrounding survey numbers given in the map clearly show that the map is prepared with reference to survey numbers and not with reference to municipal numbers. Thus, we find sufficient substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even according to the admission in the counter with reference to the map prepared by the Government itself, the premises in question is patta land therefore, no notice under Section 7 could have been issued treating the said land as government land and stating that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the Government land. This itself is sufficient to allow the writ petition and quash the notice as it is issued with reference to patta lands and not government lands. But, since both the learned Counesl have addressed elaborate arguments we are inclined to deal with those also. " ( 24 ) AS can be seen from the above para, the authorities after the enquiry in 1981, prepared the map in 1982 showing the patta lands, Government lands, and those lands which have been recognised as lands that are accepted as assigned lands. The said map was perused by the Division bench. There is no reference to the said map in the counters filed in these writ petitions and such a map was also not produced before this Court. ( 25 ) IT is to be further noted in this regard that the Sarfekhas authorities have issued assignments in favour of 35 persons in respect of whom enquiry was ordered by memo dated 28-2-1981. Mr. Jafar Ali shareef and the three assignees viz. , Mr. Mir Hassan Ali Khan, Quasim Ali and ravikal Venkatram Reddy are figuring in the list. Mr. Jafar Ali shareef and the three assignees viz. , Mr. Mir Hassan Ali Khan, Quasim Ali and ravikal Venkatram Reddy are figuring in the list. In respect of the writ petition filed by the successors-in-interest of Jafar Ali shareef, the Government pressed the very same contention stating that the assignee-owner had no title to the property as Deed of Assignment itself was forged. The said contention was repelled by the Division bench by holding thus: "the only submission by the respondents is that the petitioners are merely trespassers since no title passed on to them for the reason that the so-called original assignee-owner Jafar Ali Shareef himself had no title to the property, the deed of assignment itself being a forged one, and therefore, proceedings under sections 6 and 7 of the Encroachment act could be taken. The Supreme Court has very clearly laid down that in such a situation there is a genuine dispute between the parties in respect of the question of title and until the Government succeeds in establishing its title to the property it is not open to the Government to take proceedings under Section 6 or 7 of the Encroachment Act to summarily evict the petitioners. The dictum of the supreme Court applies to the instant case on all fours. The learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that S. No. 403 referred to in the schedule of the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act does not find a place in the survey and settlement records and therefore, the said survey number cannot be taken cognisance. In this regard he submitted that the village of Shaikpet was surveyed in the year 1326 Fasli (1917 AD) after the survey sethwar was issued in 1330 Fasli. According to the Sethwar there were 353 survey numbers in the Sethwar and survey number 129 covers an extent of ac. 3228-29 guntas. In 1331 Fasli a suplementary Sethwar was issued by dividing S. Nos. 129 into 10 sub-divisions from S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10. Again in 1346 Fasli S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10 were deleted and re-numbered as S. Nos. 353 to 404. It is stated that S. No. 129/1 corresponds to S. No. 403 and measures ac. 2967. 27 guntas, which was classified as poramboke . The learned Counsel submitted that S. Nos. 129 into 10 sub-divisions from S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10. Again in 1346 Fasli S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10 were deleted and re-numbered as S. Nos. 353 to 404. It is stated that S. No. 129/1 corresponds to S. No. 403 and measures ac. 2967. 27 guntas, which was classified as poramboke . The learned Counsel submitted that S. Nos. 353 to 404 are not recognised in the survey and settlement records and the map prepared in pursuance of the survey conducted in 1326 Fasli is not available. The learned government Pleader has also submitted that the village map is not available to find out whether the survey numbers were recognised. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was revisioq survey of the Shaikpet village in 1352 Fasli. Village map is prepared and that is available also. But the survey and settlement conducted were not implemented in the revenue records. Thus, it is submitted that since the village map prepared during survey of 1326 Fasli is not available, it is not possible to identify the land covered by S. No. 129. Similar is the case with reference to the sub-divisions of S. No. 129, viz. , 129/1 to 129/10. So much so, there is nothing available to locate the land in S. No. 129/1, which is treated to be equivalent to 403. Similar is the case with reference to s. No. 129/6. " with regard to the division of survey numbers and sub-division numbers done from time to time, it wsa held that it cannot be straightaway state that the land occupied by the petitioner was a Government land. It observed as follows: "so far as the facts relating to the survey and settlement and preparation of the revenue records are concerned, the learned Government Pleader also could not contradict the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In fact, those facts have been admitted in the counter filed by the respondents. What is submitted by the learned government Pleader is after sub-division of the Survey No. 129 into 129/1 to 129/10 there was a revision survey and s. Nos. 353 to 404 were given in the place of S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10 by deleting the same. Therefore, S. Nos. 353 to 404 must be deemed to be the survey numbers allotted for those 10 sub-divided numbers. 353 to 404 were given in the place of S. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10 by deleting the same. Therefore, S. Nos. 353 to 404 must be deemed to be the survey numbers allotted for those 10 sub-divided numbers. It is not in dispute that these new survey numbers, namely 353 to 404, do not find a place in the survey and settlement records nor could it be said exactly as to what is the exact area of the new corresponding numbers to s. Nos. 129/1 to 129/10. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel sri Pratap Reddy that the Government itself is not in a position to identify the lands. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that survey No. 403 cannot be taken notice of officially. Therefore, treating the land covered by S. No. 403 as Government land the petitioners cannot be styled as encroachers calling upon their eviction by issuing a notice under section 7 of the Act. Further the Khasra pahani refers to S. No. 129 and its equivalent number 403 . The possession of about 75 persons is shown. We see sufficient force in this submission of the learned Counsel. It cannot be straight away said that the land occupied by the petitioners is the Government land. We have already noted that several persons were assigned the land in Survey No. 129 during the Sarfekhas period and they were all in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, as many as 75 persons were shown as having been in possession of the land in S. No. 129 in the Khasra pahani. Out of those 75 persons Jqfar ali Shareef is at serial No. 23. We are giving below the names of some of the persons from the extract as furnished in English translated copy by the respondents: ( 41 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the municipal authorities have no authority to insist on urban land ceiling certificate and no objection certificate from the Collector. He relies on the decision of this Court reported in mirza Waked Ali Baig v. Special Officer, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1975 APHC Notes 1, Subash Kumar Lohade v. The Special Officer, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, 1985 (1) APLJ 20 , M/s Annapurana Builders v. The municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1987 (1) ALT 644 . He relies on the decision of this Court reported in mirza Waked Ali Baig v. Special Officer, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1975 APHC Notes 1, Subash Kumar Lohade v. The Special Officer, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, 1985 (1) APLJ 20 , M/s Annapurana Builders v. The municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1987 (1) ALT 644 . This Court in Mirza wahed AH Baig s case (supra), held that the Municipal Corporation has no power to go into the question of title for the purpose of granting permission. In S. K. Lohade s case (supra), this Court held that the municipal Corporation cannot insist No objection Certificate from the Collector for the purpose of considering the application for the purpose of sanctioning of lay out and it cannot also insist for clearance certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling as held by this Court in M/s. Annapurna builders (supra ). ( 42 ) IT is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that except these two certificates, other documents have been filed. Therefore, in view of this, the wp No. 19297 of 1998 is disposed of with a direction to consider the case for the petitioner for grant of sanction of lay out, without insisting on Urban Land Ceiling and No Objection Certificate. ( 43 ) FOR the reasons set out, I have to necessarily conclude that the declaration by the Government or its authorities that the subject lands are Government lands is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is held that the original owners are proper assignees by the sarfekhas authorities and consequently the subsequent vendees shall be treated as lawful owners with valid title and possession. Accordingly WP Nos. 11200 of 1998, 21431 of 1998, and 23217 of 1998 are allowed. WP No. 19297 of 1998 is disposed of with directions. ( 44 ) NO costs. ( 45 ) IN view of the disposal of the writ petitions, no orders are necessary in contempt case. Accordingly, it is closed.