Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 624 (TS)

P. Raghuveer v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2023-09-08

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The land, which is the subject matter of these three Writ Petitions, is one and the same and as such, all these three matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 was filed questioning the orders passed by respondent No.2 in proceedings No.P3/617/2010, dtd. 17/6/2013, purported to be in exercise of the revisional power under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act, 1923'). 3. Writ Petition No.5405 of 2014 was filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein in conducting the re-survey of the subject land and attempting to dispossess the petitioner. 4. Writ Petition No.3014 of 2017 was filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-Police in not providing Police Protection for implementation of the orders passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968, O.S.No.1788 of 2010 and certain other orders passed by this Court. 5. The brief and undisputed facts that are relevant for disposal of these Writ Petitions are as under:- The father of the petitioner originally filed O.S.No.31 of 1965, which was renumbered as O.S.No.59 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad East and North, seeking declaration of title against the Government represented by the District Collector, Hyderabad District. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree, dtd. 31/7/1976. The operative portion of the decree, reads as under:- "That the plaintiff is hereby declared as owner and possessor of the suit land bearing Survey No.242 to the extent of 8 acres, situated at Kandikal Village, Uppuguda Taluq, East Hyderabad District bounded on north by Road, South by S.No.262, East by land of Rayulu and West by Path and agricultural land and the plaintiff is entitled to assignment of the same as per rules and further the deft is not entitled to evict the plaintiff from the above suit land." 6. Though an appeal was filed against the above judgment and decree, dtd. 31/7/1976, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the said condone delay application was dismissed resulting in dismissal of the appeal as well on 18/8/1979. Aggrieved thereby, the Government filed a C.R.P.No.1559 of 1981 before this Court and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 12/6/1981. 7. 31/7/1976, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the said condone delay application was dismissed resulting in dismissal of the appeal as well on 18/8/1979. Aggrieved thereby, the Government filed a C.R.P.No.1559 of 1981 before this Court and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 12/6/1981. 7. Thereafter, the Government filed O.S.No.168 of 1991, seeking cancellation of judgment and decree in O.S.No.59 of 1968 and the said suit was dismissed for default on 28/11/1997. During pendency of O.S.No.168 of 1991, the petitioner herein and his brothers filed O.S.No.4619 of 1992 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent-authorities and the same was dismissed by a judgment and decree, dtd. 27/10/1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and his brothers filed A.S.No.402 of 1997 and the same was allowed by the appellate Court by a judgment and decree, dtd. 6/4/2000. 8. While matters stood thus, the respondent-Government filed L.G.C. No.20 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act, 1982') against the petitioner herein, his three brothers and sixteen others alleging that they have grabbed the land admeasuring Acs.14.22 gts., in Sy.No.242 of Kandikal Village and out of the said total extent of Acs.14.22 gts., the petitioner and his brothers were alleged to have grabbed an extent of Acs.8.00 gts. The said Special Court having taken note of the judgment and decrees, passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968 and O.S.No.168 of 1991, dismissed the said L.G.C. No.20 of 1998, by an order, dtd. 18/11/2003. The W.P.M.P.No.22451 of 2008 and W.P.SR.No.84261 of 2008 filed thereagainst were also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order, dtd. 11/8/2008. 9. The orders passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.59 of 1968, O.S.No.168 of 1991 and the orders passed by the Special Court under the Act, 1982, in L.G.C. No.20 of 1998 and the findings rendered therein have become final. 10. The relief sought in Writ Petition Nos.5405 of 2014 and 3014 of 2017 are rather consequential to the relief sought in Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 and therefore, it is suffice if Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 is considered by this Court on merits. The other facts that are required to be noted for clarity are as under:- 11. 10. The relief sought in Writ Petition Nos.5405 of 2014 and 3014 of 2017 are rather consequential to the relief sought in Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 and therefore, it is suffice if Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 is considered by this Court on merits. The other facts that are required to be noted for clarity are as under:- 11. The petitioner and his brothers, having succeeded to the subject property admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.242 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, claimed to have approached respondent No.5- Tahsildar, seeking mutation of their names in the Revenue records in respect of the subject land and respondent No.5 stated to have issued the proceedings bearing No.C/2989/82, dtd. 22/9/1982. As the said proceedings was not given effect to, the petitioner and his brothers, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14095 of 1989, wherein this Court directed respondent No.5 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and others for mutation of the subject land in their names. Thereafter, respondent No.5-Tahsildar submitted a report to respondent No.3-District Collector and respondent No.3-District Collector through proceedings No.B2/3260/2004, dtd. 1/4/2010, directed the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad (for short 'the Dy. Director'), to incorporate the changes in Town Survey Records (for short 'the TSR) in respect of the subject land situated in Sy.No.242 and in correlating Town Survey numbers of the Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal. The said proceedings were issued considering the mutation proceedings that were issued by respondent No.5, dtd. 22/9/1982. Thereafter, the successor incumbent of the office of respondent No.3 addressed a letter No.B2/3260/2004, dtd. 5/7/2010 to respondent No.2, with a request to set aside the proceedings No.B2/3260/2004, dtd. 1/4/2010. Basing upon the said letter, dtd. 5/7/2010, respondent No.2 suo moto took up the matter as revision petition under the provisions of the Act, 1923, read with Board of Revenue Standing Order (for short 'B.S.O.') 31 and B.S.O. 34-A against the proceedings of respondent No.3 bearing Rc.No.B2/3260/2004, dtd. 1/4/2010 and passed the orders in proceedings No.P3/617/2010, dtd. 17/6/2013. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 was filed. 12. This Court, having entertained Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013, suspended the operation of the impugned order, by an order dtd. 8/8/2013. Thereafter, on filing a vacate petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an elaborate order on 4/11/2013, while making the interim suspension absolute. 17/6/2013. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 was filed. 12. This Court, having entertained Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013, suspended the operation of the impugned order, by an order dtd. 8/8/2013. Thereafter, on filing a vacate petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an elaborate order on 4/11/2013, while making the interim suspension absolute. The said order, dtd. 4/11/2013, reads as under:- "These applications are filed seeking vacation of interim order dtd. 8/8/2013 in WPMP No.28267/2013 in W.P.No.22742/2013. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The father of the petitioner obtained decree for declaration of title in respect of land which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition as far back as 31/7/1976 in O.S.No.59/1968. The said decree was confirmed in appeal. O.S.No.168/1991 filed by the State Government was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Interlocutory Application filed for condonation of delay in seeking restoration of the said suit was dismissed. Later, the State Government has filed Land Grabbing Case against the petitioner which also ended in dismissal. After the end of this litigation, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for effecting changes in the T.S.L.R. The Deputy Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records issued proceedings in 2010 incorporating the changes. By proceedings dtd. 1/4/2010, respondent No.3 has approved the changes in the T.S.L.R. However, the successor Collector has written to respondent No.2 for revising the decision of his predecessor- in-office. Based on the said request, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, to which he has submitted a detailed explanation. Respondent No.2 has thereafter passed the impugned order setting aside the order of respondent No.3 incorporating the changes and directed him to consider passing of appropriate orders afresh. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has rendered a specific finding that so long as the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1968 subsists, the petitioner's right over the land in question cannot be extinguished. However, at the same time, respondent No.2 has set-aside the order of the District Collector while directing him to consider passing a fresh order keeping in view the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1968. However, at the same time, respondent No.2 has set-aside the order of the District Collector while directing him to consider passing a fresh order keeping in view the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1968. In my prima facie opinion, the approach of respondent No.2 is wholly unintelligible as he has himself observed that the rights of the petitioner over the land in question cannot be denied so long as the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1968 remains in force. On the purported procedural irregularities in effecting mutation in the T.S.L.R., respondent No.2 has set-aside the same. The same result would obviously ensue if respondent No.3 is to reconsider the issue as the petitioner is entitled to incorporation of his name in the T.S.L.R. even after remand, in view of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59/1968. In my opinion, the whole effort of the revenue functionaries who have lost the litigation lock, stock and barrel, is aimed at over-reaching the Judgment and Decree of the Civil Court in O.S.No.59/1968. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any reason to vacate the interim order dtd. 8/8/2013. Both the W.V.M.Ps. are accordingly dismissed." 13. Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.6 filed a separate counter affidavit. 14. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the Writ Petitions, Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 15. It is an undisputed fact that the father of the petitioner herein was declared as absolute owner of the land admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.242 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, by virtue of a decree passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968 by a competent Civil Court and the said judgment and decree have become final and binding on the respondent-Government. The efforts made by respondent Nos.1 to 5 to declare the petitioner and his brothers as land grabbers in respect of the subject land and for recovery of possession failed by virtue of dismissal of L.G.C. No.20 of 1998. The said judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.20 of 1998 also has attained the finality. There is no dispute to this extent, even in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6. 16. The said judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.20 of 1998 also has attained the finality. There is no dispute to this extent, even in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6. 16. In the light of the above, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are not entitled to take any stand contrary to the judgments and decrees that were passed by the competent Courts inter se parties and that have become final. Insofar as the claim of respondent No.6 to the extent of the slaughter house i.e., stated to be situated in Sy.No.242 of Kandikal Village covered by a compound wall is concerned, it is evident from the pleadings on record that the petitioner is not claiming any portion out of the slaughter house, which is also admittedly said to have been covered by a compound wall. From the judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C. No.20 of 1998, the petitioner and his brothers were stated to be in possession of the subject land admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.242. The total extent of land situated in Sy.No.242 is Acs.14.22 gts., and out of that, the slaughter house is shown to have been situated in an extent of 1934 Sq. Mts. and covered by a compound wall. Though a claim is made on behalf of respondent No.6 contending that respondent No.6 is in possession of an extent of Acs.4.20 gts., respondent No.6 having admitted about the decree, passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968 contended in its counter affidavit, dtd. 7/10/2013, that the petitioner taking advantage of the decree obtained by him for an extent of Acs.8.00 gts., the petitioner and his family members having sold most of the said land are making hectic efforts to encroach into the land belonging to respondent No.6. Further, surprisingly, respondent No.6 filed another counter affidavit before this Court on 22/2/2022 stating that the subject property is falling outside the jurisdiction of the respondent-Corporation (GHMC) and respondent No.6 is not a necessary party to the present Writ Petition, as the property is not falling in the jurisdiction of the respondent-Corporation. Hence, requested for dispensing with respondent No.6 from the present Writ Petition, as the respondent-Corporation is no way concerned with the subject property. Thus, it is evident that the land that is being claimed by the petitioner admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., is different from the land that was claimed by respondent No.6. Hence, requested for dispensing with respondent No.6 from the present Writ Petition, as the respondent-Corporation is no way concerned with the subject property. Thus, it is evident that the land that is being claimed by the petitioner admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., is different from the land that was claimed by respondent No.6. In the light of the above, the correctness of the impugned order, dtd. 17/6/2013, is need to be examined. 17. This Court, having taken the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on either side, does not find any reason to deviate from the view already taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dtd. 4/11/2013, while making the ad interim order absolute. However, this Court intends to add some more reasons, as under:- 18. Respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order, having considered the contentions raised by all the parties concerned, arrived at a conclusion that there were material irregularities and procedural irregularities committed by respondent No.3, while issuing the proceedings, dtd. 1/4/2010, which reads as under:- "Moreover, the respondent has not filed any document evidencing that Tahsildar, Charminar has issued proceedings sanctioning mutation in their favour. He has been asked to produce a copy of the same but he failed to do so. This further confirms the fact of non-existence of the file No.C/2989/1982 in which it has been claimed that mutation has been sanctioned to the respondent. Notwithstanding the above lapses, the rights of the respondent herein can't be extinguished as long as the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.59/68 is subsisting, since all the efforts made by the Government to get the said decree set-aside having been failed, the same needs to be implemented." 19. Respondent No.2, having noted that there were material and procedural irregularities committed by respondent No.3, also recorded a finding that the rights of the petitioner herein and his brothers cannot be extinguished as long as the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1968 is subsisting and also taken note of the fact that all the efforts made by the Government to set aside the said decree have failed and the said decree is bound to be implemented. In the light of the conclusion arrived at by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is entitled for implementation of the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1968, in considered view of this Court, respondent No.2 instead of interfering with the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, passed by respondent No.3, ought have issued appropriate directions for giving effect to the decree passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968. The material irregularities that were found by respondent No.2 are on the ground of non-existence of the file bearing No.C/2989/1982, wherein respondent No.5 stated to have issued orders directing mutation of the names of the petitioner and his brothers in the Revenue records in respect of the subject property and also on the ground that the petitioner also failed to produce any such proceedings issued by respondent No.5. Thus, he has concluded that there was no such proceeding in file No.C/2989/1982, issued by respondent No.5. Even assuming that, there is no such proceeding, in the light of the admitted fact situation that, the father of the petitioner herein was declared as absolute owner while declaring that the respondent-Government is not entitled to evict him from the subject property, the same hardly makes any difference and the right and entitlement of the petitioner and his brothers being successor-in-interest of the decree holder in O.S.No.59 of 1968 is no way effected. In terms of B.S.O, the District Collector is the competent authority to issue a formal order for alterations in the Revenue records/TSLR. As respondent No.2 also arrived at final conclusion that the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1968 is bound to be implemented, respondent No.2 ought not have interfered with the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, passed by respondent No.3. 20. There is no dispute that the Collector is the competent authority to issue necessary instructions for giving effect to the decrees that were passed by the competent Civil Court for changing entries in the concerned records. Through the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, respondent No.3 practically directed for implementation of the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1968 only. 21. Then coming to the procedural irregularities that were pointed out by respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order are that respondent No.3, while ordering for mutation has not enclosed the Sub-division sketch of the proposed land, as required under BSO No.34-A Para-21 read with Para 8/8 (c) of Appendix-xiii and Para-13 and also on the ground that the Dy. 21. Then coming to the procedural irregularities that were pointed out by respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order are that respondent No.3, while ordering for mutation has not enclosed the Sub-division sketch of the proposed land, as required under BSO No.34-A Para-21 read with Para 8/8 (c) of Appendix-xiii and Para-13 and also on the ground that the Dy. Director, while conducting spot inspection had not put respondent No.6 on notice. Even assuming that the said procedural irregularities, as pointed out by respondent No.2 are true, the same does not warrant interference with the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, passed by respondent No.3 herein. If at all, any such procedural irregularity was there, it would have been proper for respondent No.2 to direct rectification of such procedural irregularity instead of setting aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010. 22. As a matter of fact, as is evident from the very impugned proceedings, consequent upon the orders, dtd. 1/4/2010, issued by respondent No.3, the Dy. Director incorporated the changes in the TSLR in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.242 correlating to T.S. Nos.26/1, 26/2 and 26/3 of Block-H, Ward No.272 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal and thereby, the name of the petitioner and his brothers were incorporated for an extent of 27491.80 Sq. Mts. equivalent to Acs.6.32 gts., and the slaughter house was shown to have been existing in an extent of 1873.53 Sq. Mts. situated in T.S. No.29/1. In case if respondent No.6 is aggrieved by such incorporation of the names of the petitioner and his brothers in the TSR, it is for respondent No.6 to take appropriate action. But, it is nobody's case that respondent No.6 has raised its little finger against such changes in the TSLR. But, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that at the instance of certain objections raised by the local public and people's representatives, the successor officer of the office of respondent No.3 appears to have addressed a letter, dtd. 5/7/2010, to respondent No.2 to set aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010. When respondent No.3 issued the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, ordering for implementation and giving effect to a decree passed by a competent Civil Court, the objections raised by third parties or people's representatives cannot be a ground for setting aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010. 5/7/2010, to respondent No.2 to set aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010. When respondent No.3 issued the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, ordering for implementation and giving effect to a decree passed by a competent Civil Court, the objections raised by third parties or people's representatives cannot be a ground for setting aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010. Further, yet another reason appears to be, as is evident from the impugned order that there is no proper passage for the slaughter house of the GHMC, once the names of the petitioner and his brothers were updated in the TSLR. Even assuming that the same is correct, that cannot be a ground to set aside the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, passed by respondent No.3. It is for respondent No.6 to work out its remedies, if at all it is aggrieved by such incorporation of the names of the petitioner and his brothers in the TSLR. 23. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.6- Corporation has taken a specific stand that it is nothing to do with the land admeasuring Acs.8.00 gts., which is the subject matter of these Writ Petitions and also on the ground that the subject land is falling outside the jurisdiction of respondent No.6, the so-called procedural irregularity of not putting respondent No.6 on notice, while conducting spot inspection and survey by the Dy. Director, is of no consequence. Even the other procedural irregularity of not enclosing the survey sub-division sketch is also of no consequence, as the Dy. Director in furtherance of the order, dtd. 1/4/2010, passed by respondent No.3, has completed the spot inspection and survey and also implemented the said order, dtd. 1/4/2010, by duly incorporating the names of the petitioner and his brothers in the TSR in respect of the TS numbers correlating to Sy.No.242 of Kandikal Village. 24. Though, respondent No.2 purported to have exercised the revisional power conferred upon him under the provisions of the Act, 1923, read with B.S.O. 31 and B.S.O. 34-A, there is no such revisional power conferred upon respondent No.2 and nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to satisfy about any such power vested in respondent No.2 to suo moto take up the revisional proceedings and to interfere with the orders passed by respondent No.3. 25. 25. In the light of the above, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the order, dtd. 4/11/2013 and is of the considered view that a continuous effort is being made to deprive the petitioner and his brothers of the rights that accrued to them by virtue of a decree passed in O.S.No.59 of 1968, dtd. 31/7/1976. Hence, in the considered view of this Court the impugned order, dtd. 17/6/2013, is wholly unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 26. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently Writ Petition No.5405 of 2014 is also allowed directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land in any manner. Writ Petition No.3014 of 2017 is concerned, the same is filed seeking Police Protection in the year 2017 and in the light of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to pass any specific orders in this Writ Petition, at this stage, and the same is accordingly closed leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate action, if the cause in the said Writ Petition still survives or if any fresh cause of action arises. 27. In the result, Writ Petition No.22742 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.5405 of 2014 are allowed and Writ Petition No.3014 of 2017 is closed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.