Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 113 (TS)

M. Sreeram Reddy v. State of A. P.

2021-04-20

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Proceedings No. R1/3023/09, dated 26.03.2012 of the respondent No. 1 in canceling the Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009 executed by the then District Collector, Hyderabad District, vide document No. 3079 of 2009 in respect of the land to an extent of 166 square yards in Sy. No. 281, correlated to T.S. No. 4, Ward No. 21, Block-N, premises No. 13-6-437/2/F, situated at Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that basing on the long standing occupation of the subject land, which is admittedly, Government land, the petitioner made an application on 27.06.2008 seeking transfer of rights of the subject land in his favour, as per G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, the District Level Regularization Committee, in its meeting held on 25.05.2009, had recommended for transfer of rights of the subject land in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs.1,64,548/-, being the market value of the land. On payment of the said amount vide challan Nos. 146285 and 137993, dated 27.08.2009 and 31.07.2009, the respondent No. 1 issued the proceedings on 17.09.2009 and also executed a Conveyance Deed bearing document No. 3079 of 2009, dated 24.09.2009 transferring the ownership rights of the subject land in favour of the petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner, with an intent to construct a new building, demolished the existing structures and obtained building permission from the GHMC, vide permit No. 30/59, dated 09.12.2009. However, basing on a complaint alleging that the subject land falls in T.S. No. 4, Block-N, Ward No. 21, correlated to Sy. No. 281, which is classified as G-Well, the respondent No. 1 called for a report from the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, and on the basis of the same, vide impugned proceedings, dated 26.03.2012, ordered to cancel the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.09.2009. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 12.04.2012, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings in W.P.M.P. No. 13007 of 2012. 4. Pending the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 9023 of 2014 came to be filed by Smt. G. Sulochana seeking to implead her as party-respondent to the writ petition. The said application was ordered on 25.03.2021. 5. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 12.04.2012, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings in W.P.M.P. No. 13007 of 2012. 4. Pending the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 9023 of 2014 came to be filed by Smt. G. Sulochana seeking to implead her as party-respondent to the writ petition. The said application was ordered on 25.03.2021. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3. Perused the material available on record. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, or conducting any enquiry, the impugned proceedings have been passed behind the back of the petitioner unilaterally and therefore, the entire proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, in the land grabbing case filed by the official respondents, being L.G.C. No. 10 of 2010, their case was that the land to an extent of 1875 sq. meters in T.S. No. 4, Block-N, Ward No. 21 is classified as Sarkari/ Kharijkhata and they also admitted that the respondents therein have raised constructions and therefore, sought for their eviction. From the statement made therein by the respondents themselves, it is clear that there is no ‘Well’ existing over the subject land. Therefore, the very cancellation of Conveyance Deed by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that as per Town Survey Land Register, the subject land is shown as G-Well, is incorrect and without any basis. 7. Adverting to the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has argued that as per the entries in Town Survey Land Register, the subject land has been recorded as G-Well (Water), which is objectionable as per Clause No. 10(iii) of G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. The learned Government Pleader submits that the earlier proceedings, relating to Conveyance Deed, in favour of the petitioners were issued as a result of wrong mentioning of Survey number as 27/P. Subsequently, after conducting the enquiry and considering the entries in TSLR and the revenue records/pahanies, the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The learned Government Pleader submits that the earlier proceedings, relating to Conveyance Deed, in favour of the petitioners were issued as a result of wrong mentioning of Survey number as 27/P. Subsequently, after conducting the enquiry and considering the entries in TSLR and the revenue records/pahanies, the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The learned Government Pleader submits that the proceedings initiated by the official respondents to protect the Government land, including the subject land, arising out of LGC No. 10 of 2010, are pending before this Court. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner claiming to be in long standing possession/occupation of the subject land, made an application to the Government on 27.06.2008, seeking transfer of rights, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008 which deals with regularization of encroachment by way of dwelling houses on Government lands, in urban areas of Hyderabad on payment of market value. After conducting an enquiry and on receipt of report from the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009 was executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 transferring/assigning the ownership rights of the subject land in his favour. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 1,64,548/- being the market value of the subject land, as determined by the respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1, by way of Proceedings No. R1/3023/09, dated 27.10.2009 addressed to the Commissioner, Town Planning Section, Circle No. VII, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, had expressed ‘no objection’ for issuing the construction permission in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 09.12.2009, granted building permission in favour of the petitioner vide Permit No. 30/59 in File No. 437/6/13/2009. At this stage, the impugned proceedings came to be issued cancelling the Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009 executed in favour of the petitioner. It appears, the sole basis for issuance of the impugned proceedings is as a result of application made by the respondent No. 3, dated 30.06.2011 to the respondent No. 1 to the effect that the subject land is ‘Well’ and left for the purpose of park. It appears, the sole basis for issuance of the impugned proceedings is as a result of application made by the respondent No. 3, dated 30.06.2011 to the respondent No. 1 to the effect that the subject land is ‘Well’ and left for the purpose of park. Even though the learned Government Pleader has contended that the land in question is also subject matter of L.G.C. No. 10 of 2010, admittedly, the petitioner was not made as a party to the said proceedings, as the Conveyance Deed was already executed in his favour. 9. For all practical purposes, by virtue of execution of Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009, the petitioner has become the rightful owner and possessor of the subject land. However, a perusal of the impugned proceedings does not disclose as to the issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner before canceling the Conveyance Deed. Even there is no reference in the proceedings as to the application, dated 30.06.2011 allegedly made by respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1. The one and only reason assigned for cancellation of Conveyance Deed was that the Tahsildar, Asifnagar has reported that the subject land falls in T.S. No. 4, Block-N, Ward No. 21, correlated to Sy. No. 281, which is classified as G-Well (Water body) and the same is objectionable as per Clause No. 10(iii) (c) of G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Again, no details are mentioned in the impugned proceedings as to when the report was submitted by the Tahsildar, Asifnagar stating the subject land as G-Well. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, unilaterally canceling the Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009, are ex facie illegal and appear to have been issued with mala-fide intention at the instigation of the respondent No. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, under similar circumstances, by order, dated 29.08.2011 allowed W.P. No. 21861 of 2011 observing as under:- “As the purchaser has died, the petitioner, being his son, evidently succeeded to the property. The context in which the impugned proceedings were issued by the Commissioner of respondent No. 5-Corporation is that when the petitioner’s father has applied for sanction of building plan, the Commissioner appeared to have noticed that the entry in the TSLR reveals that the property is declared as ‘M’, which means ‘Municipal’. The law is well settled that mere entry in the TSLR is not conclusive proof of title. The law is well settled that mere entry in the TSLR is not conclusive proof of title. On the basis of such an entry it is not permissible for the Commissioner to come to a unilateral conclusion that the land conveyed to the father of the petitioner belongs to the Municipal Corporation. As noted above, so long as the conveyance deed remains in force, the title in the property is not divested from the petitioner’s family. If respondent No. 5 is of the opinion that its property was illegally conveyed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioner’s father, it can only approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief for invalidation of the sale and by getting its title declared.” 10. It is settled legal position that once a registered deed is executed in favour of a party, the original owner is divested of the title to the property. The executant cannot take a ‘U’ turn and subsequently cancel the same unilaterally. If the executant is aggrieved, the only remedy available for him/her is to approach the competent civil court by way of a suit seeking cancellation of the registered deed on the grounds available under the law [See Thota Ganga Laxmi vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 207 and Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767 ]. 11. Insofar as the claim of respondent No. 3 is concerned, her grievance is that if the petitioner is allowed to make construction, the total entrance of her residential building would be blocked as there is no other way and therefore, her easementary rights will adversely be affected. If the respondent No. 3 has any such grievance, her remedy is not approach the civil court for protection of her easementary rights, if any, but she cannot object the prayer sought in the writ petition. Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, the impugned proceedings of the respondent No. 1, dated 26.03.2012 are not sustainable under law and liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent No. 1, dated 26.03.2012. 13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.