Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 650 (TS)

State of Telangana v. G. Vishal Yadav

2024-09-04

ALOK ARADHE, J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 13 of 2024 (writ petitioner in W.P. No. 25859 of 2021). Ms. B. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 9 in W.A. Nos.24 and 31 of 2024 (writ petitioners in W.P. No. 33645 of 2021 and W.P. No. 8292 of 2021). Mr. K. Siddharth Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 in W.A. No. 13 of 2024 and respondents No. 10 and 11 in W.A. Nos. 24 and 31 of 2024. Mr. P. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 12 in W.A. No. 31 of 2024. 2. In compliance of the order dated 21.08.2024, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced the original record for perusal of this Court. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally. 4. These intra court appeals emanate from a common order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 8292, 25859 and 33645 of 2021. 5. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that one Miss Olive Ogilvi and Miss Sybil Ogilvi were the owners of a big house along with appurtenant land. The aforesaid land was sold to one Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum, vide sale deed dated 26th Azar 1337 Fasli (1927). The subject property was popularly known as ‘Maman Bungalow’. The owner of the subject property, namely, Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum gifted her property by way of Hiba-bill-qabz on 01.03.1957 and the same was recorded in Memorandum of Gift Deed dated 12.04.1957 stating that Vicarunissa Begum, Iqbalunissa, Zamelunissa, Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and Syed Khaja Afzaluddin have been allotted equal shares in all part and parcel of the house and appurtenant land. 6. In the aforesaid gift deed, it was clearly recorded that some land was leased out to M/s. Burma Shell Company and site which was leased out to M/s. Caltex in which Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and Syed Khaja Afzaluddin alone have equal shares. 6. In the aforesaid gift deed, it was clearly recorded that some land was leased out to M/s. Burma Shell Company and site which was leased out to M/s. Caltex in which Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and Syed Khaja Afzaluddin alone have equal shares. Thereafter, the subject property was divided into two portions i.e. land into 2670.30 square metres and 2313.30 square metres to facilitate the purchase of the same by two sets of families. The first part of the land consisting of 2670.30 square metres was purchased by G. Laxmamma and nine others vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.1978. 7. After the aforesaid purchase, the subject property alone was demolished and a theatre by name Amaravathi was constructed after taking permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Out of the remaining land, open space measuring 2000 square yards was being utilized for the theatre as well as parking of the vehicles of the petrol bunk. 8. In the year 2011, the Tahsildar affixed a notice issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Summons Act, 1869, on the wall of the theatre by which it was proposed to hold an enquiry on the ground that the State Government interest was involved in the subject property. The writ petitioners have submitted requisite documents in the said proceedings. Thereupon, the Collector on the basis of the report of the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as well as the report of the Tahsildar dated 22.12.2011 issued a letter to the competent authority giving particulars of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act. It was stated in the aforesaid communication that as per TSLR, the land in Sy. No. 5 is correlated to T.S. No. 7, Block-L, Ward 83 of Khairatabad Village to an extent of 4818 square metres which was recorded in the name of Vicarunnissa Begum and five others as Bangala Patta and an extent of Ac. 1.35 guntas in the name of Chote Mem Saab as pattadar. It was clearly mentioned that the writ petitioners, who are occupants and are claiming title from Vicarunnissa Begum and five others, have constructed the theatre and two petrol bunks. 9. However, in the year 2016 another notice dated 21.06.2016 was affixed on the wall of the theatre by the District Collector, which was addressed to one R. Kommaraiah, who was not alive by that time. 9. However, in the year 2016 another notice dated 21.06.2016 was affixed on the wall of the theatre by the District Collector, which was addressed to one R. Kommaraiah, who was not alive by that time. The aforesaid notice was required to call upon the illegal occupants to submit applications for regularizing illegal occupation or surplus land in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 92. The writ petitioners did not choose to file an application seeking regularization. Thereafter, a communication dated 25.02.2021 was forwarded to the State Government for according permission to alienate the premises belonging to the writ petitioners i.e. H. No. 6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, to an extent of 1287 square metres in T.S. No. 7, Block-L, Ward No. 83 of Khairtabad Village, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) in favour of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC). The Special Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, issued a communication dated 30.11.2021 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to handover the advance possession to the District Collector to an extent of 500 to 600 square metres in T.S. No. 7, Block-L, Ward No. 83 of Khairtabad Village, Hyderabad. The writ petitioners thereupon filed the writ petitions in which challenge was made to the order dated 25.02.2021 by which the land was proposed to be allotted to TSERC. The writ petitioners further assailed the action of the appellants in trying to take possession of the subject land. 10. The learned Single Judge by the common order dated 20.06.2022 quashed the proceedings dated 25.02.2021 by which the subject land was sought to be allotted to the TSERC. The communication issued on 30.11.2021 as well as the proceedings dated 19.03.2021 and 31.05.2021 issued for allotment of land were also quashed. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the subject land has been declared to be a surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the basis of the declaration given by the owners of the land that they have no objection to the land being declared surplus. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the parties. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the parties. It is also urged that in any case, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the liberty to the appellants to proceed in accordance with law. 12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 14. The Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, AIR 1964 SC 1419 have held that the question of title cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Admittedly, the orders dated 25.02.2021, 30.11.2021, 19.03.2021 and 31.05.2021 have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. On this ground alone, the orders of allotment and the order directing handing over advance possession of the subject land cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 15. In view of the aforesaid Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clarified that the order of the learned Single Judge shall be treated to have not expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the properties and it will be open for the appellants to take action, if so advised, against the respondents (writ petitioners) in accordance with law. 16. To the aforesaid extent, the common order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. 17. In the result, the writ appeals are disposed of. 18. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.