B. Krishna Goud S/o Late Bhikshapathi, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SARATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-30. B. Krishna Goud S/o Late Bhikshapathi, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
[ 33021 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER . TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 23965 OF 2015 Between: B. Krishna Goud S/o Late Bhikshapathi, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 7 -1 -30416139, B. K. Guda, Adityanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Ameerpet, Mandal, Hyderabad at Ameerpet. 4. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, B. R. K. R. Bhavan, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the highhanded action of the respondents by interfering with the property rights of the petitioner in forming part of Sy. No. 58, Plot No. 2, premises bearing Municipal No. 8-4- 1311 1411 1 (Old) corresponding to 8-3-166. 17121 lA (New) admeasuring about 193 sq. yards situated at Erragadda, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14, 19' 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property Y' ^<A{E F: I l. A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP.
NO: 31064 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their men and their subordinates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's pKlperty forming part of Sy. No. 58, Plot No. 2, premises bearing Municipal No. B-4-131/'14111 (Otd) corresponding lo 8-3-166171211A (New) admeasuring about'l93 sq. yards situated at Erragadda, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DASARI S. V. V. S. V. PRAS,AD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.. 1to3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI D. NARSIMULU, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 23965 OF 2015 ORDER: 1.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. 2. trarned Counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner had obtained the subject property from One Biridichand through a registered sale deed dated 21. 06. 1975, since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the properly by payrng necessary taxes. After purchase of the above said property, the Special Tahsildar, Non Agriculture Assessment, Hyderabad through his Revenue Inspector issued notice to the petitioner demanding payment of arrears of Nala for the period from 1975 to 1977-78, the same was paid to the Revenue Department through cheque- On 22. 11. 1976, tlre petitioner applied to the respondent No. 4 for permission to raise shopping complex in tLre suit -/ premises but the same was refused by its letter dated LO. L. 1977, not only that the respondent No.
4 herein issued notices under Section 461 and 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, L955 (For short "the Act"). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition rade W. P. No. 6535 of 1980 before this Court, the same was disposed on 07. 04. 1986 by quashing the notice issued by the respondent No. 4 under Section 636 of the Act. Therealter One M. A. Jabbar filed a suit in O. S. No. 486 1 of 199 1 against the petitioner before the IV Assistant Judge, H-Vderabad and the sanne was dismissed on 22. 6. 1998, thereafter, the petitioner instituted Rent Control Case uide R. C. NO. 186 of 1994 against one M. A. Jabbar and R. C. No. 187 of 1994 against Mr. Rahmat Ali before the III,Adclitional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking their eviction from the portion of the above property, subsequentl-y, those petitions were allowed uide its order dated 24. 7. 1998, the sarne were challenged by M. A. Jabbar and Rahmat Lli uide its R. A. No. 312/L998 and R. A. No.
367 it99B before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which were also dismissed uide its order dated 13. 8. 1999. Aggrieved by the order in R. A. No. 312/ 1998, one M. A. Jabbar preferred C. R. P. No. 4638 of 1999 before this Court, the same was allowed uide its order dated 18. 02. 2000 and the matter was remitted back to the Chief Judge for disposal, thereafter, the Chief Judge dismissed the said Appeal uide dated 24 . O7 . 2OOO, in pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed Execution Petition urde E. P. No. 50 of 2OOO, the same was allowed by delivering the possession. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. S tried to dispossess the petitioner on 11. 03. 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner f-rled writ petition W. P. No. 5620 of 1999 belore this Court against the respondents herein. The respondents denying the title to the above property, as such the writ petition was dismissed on 03. 09. 1999.
When the respondents have denied the petitioner's title ai{ possession over the propert5r, the petitioner hled suit for declaration over the propert5r formirrg part of Sy. No. 58, Plot No. 2, premises bearing Municipal No. 8-4- L37/14r/1 (Old) corresponding to 8-3-166/712/LA (New) admeasuring about 193 sq. yards situated at Erragadda, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderrrbad and consequential perpetual injunction ag,ainst the respondent uide suit bearing O. S. No. 12 of 2OOL on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 3 herein llled a case under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 uide L. G. C. No. 16 of 2001, the szurre was dismissed rride its order dt. 19. 1 I. 2OO4.
Leamed Counsel for the petitioner states that the authorities have to act according to law by taking over the possession of the private properties by following the Land Acquisition Act and other laws existing on the land and requested to allow the writ petition. / 5. t earned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent No. 3 basing on counter submits that Bahalool Khan Guda is an Ex-Jagir Village under ttre The initial survey of estate of Dharam Karam Bahadur. in the year 1336 Fasli the said village was conducted (1927 A. DI. As per the Sethwar of 1336F, (Survey Record), Survey No. 58 was recorded to an extent of Ac. 97. 14 guntas. During the revision in Survey in 1348 Fasli (1939 A. D), new Sy. Nos 42, 43,63, 65, 173' 174' 175, 176, 177, fia and 186 were correlated to the old Survey No. 58 with a total extent of Acs'97'14 guntas and the entire land in question in the said 12 revision survey numbers was recorded as land belonging to "Royal Air Force".
Alter abolition of Jagirs under the Abolition Regulation, i358 Fasli (1948 A. D. ) the said village was merged with Diwani (Government) and entire property was vested with the Government, from the date of abolition of Jagirs. Thereafter, the Govemment conducted a new survey in the year, 1950 and the above into single 12 revision survey numbers were formed Sy. No. 127 with arl extent of Acs. 99. 39 guntas and the ,,Sarkari said land was classified as Land,' (Government Land) and the name of the Khatedar was recgrded as "Royal Air Force" and the entire land was shown as "Potekharab" (uncultivable 1and) as per the original Sethwar of 1953 A. D. which is the l-rnal settlement record. Later a Town Survey was conducted during the years 1965 to 1972 as per the provisions of the A. p. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. A not:.
hcation as required under Section 6 (l) of the said Act was issued calling for the interested parties to participate in the proposed Town Survey and the item 44 of the said notification was Bahalool Khan Guda village. . A. notice as required under section 9 (21 of the said Act was issued to the landholder and servecl the same on the then Tahsildar of Hyderabad Urban Taluk, in respect of ttre lands in question as it was the Government land. After conclusion of Town Surve-y, a final notification as required under section 13 of the said Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette No. 27, dated. 22. 4. L976. During the Town Survey, Survey No'127 \Mas corelated to various town survey numbers' Among those Town Survey Numbers the land in T'S'No'1, Block-B in Ward been recorded as No. 3 admeasuring 2,76,488 Sq'mts has 'G' possession Col'No'20 Government Poramboke and in Mental Hospital was recorded, out of this land an extent for during the year 1998 of 95O0 Sq.
Mts was allotted adjacent to the land 'Rythu Bazar'and was functioning corner to an bank, there is a vacant land on East-North which is separated by a small road' extent of 273 Sq. Mts, and leading to Zehra Gulshan Bagh' for the 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader that out of the land in Revenue further submits 'A' in Ward No'3 which total extent is T. S. No. 65, Block an extent of to 497'54 Sq'Yards 416 Sq. mts equivalent gone 134. 37 Sq. Yards approximately 112. 35 Sq. Mts or an extent of 24O'5L Sq'mts or into road widening and is under further road 287. 64 Sq. yds approximately balance of land to an widening and there would be a only on or 75'53 Sq'Yards exte0t of 63-14 Sq. mts ground. As per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed through which the petitioner is said to have purchased the plot should be on the main road, whictr is affected under road widening in two phases. In view of the same, the petitioner is making efforts to grab the vacant land by construction of wall.
The helcj staff of the respondent No. 3 resisted the illegal construction work on the Government land. Further, Civil suit is pending rade O. S. No. 3345 of 2OO4 on the same subject matter and the petitioner also filed implead petition in pt-. nding suit before the WII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In rriew of same, requested to clisrniss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the highhanded action of the respondents in interl-ering with the possession of the property of the petitioner, forming part of Sy. No. Sg, plot No. 2, bearing Municipal No 8-4-131/141/L (Oldl, corresponding to 8_3_ L6t)/T/2/LA (New), admeasuring to an extent of 193 Sq'Yards situated at Erragadda, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad' 8. There is a prolonged dispute between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the suit schedule property.
In the earlier round of litigation in W'P'No'562O of 1999 hled by the petitioners against the respondents herein, this Court dismissed the said writ petition on the title of O3. O9. 1999 as the respondents were denying the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner hled O'S'No'12 of 2OO 1 on the hle of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad against the respondents for declaration of title and consequential injunction and the said suit was decreed on 25'O2'2OO4 in favour of the petitioner. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the respondents did not file any appeal and thereby the said Decree and Judgment has become f,rnal' In view of declaration of title in respect of the subject Civil property in favour of the petitioner by a competent Court and the respondent authorities hled Land Grabbing case in LGC No. i6/2001 and the same was dismissed on 19. 11. 2004.
In view of the same, the respondents have no right to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property. If the respondents wants to acquire the subject property they have to follow the due process of larv. 9. In view of the above finding, this Writ petition is allowed directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property lorming part of Sy. No. Sg, plot No. 2, bearing Municipal No. 8-4- 13I / 141/ l(Old), corresponding to 8-3-166/7/2/1,{ (New) admeasuring to an,rxtent of 193 Sq. Yards situated at Erragadda, Arneerpet Mandal, Hyderabad in view of the Judgment and decree dated 25. O2. 2OO4 passed in O. S. No.
12 of 2OO 1 on the hle of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), H-yderabad If the respondents wants to acquire the same, they have to follow the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency l1 in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act' I l 2013. No order as to costs. if any, pending in this Writ 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, No order to costs' Petition, shall stand closed. as i SD/. A. V. S. PRASAD REGI ASSIS //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER I To, I l I 1 . The Principal Secretary' Department of Revenue' Secretariat' i Nampallv Station Road' Hvderabad' Hvderabad District , T^? '5''.? n"J? 811;. to', 5. iil;f ;ti;iiai1,a,". iil'tl[i5'iiJr;#ru*tlr:lH,? ";g:l;", 4. The Commisioner, Gr - -C'B B. ii. f h;,e grlihTS" n' g Ad vo cate c] -L \,tV" ['1flXtTb, toJ 9 ieransana at co,'. t r"iir,"'stli"-"'t P$R'Uut;r; lHign 3 ? ,13 33Ji"t$i sc FoR GHI\,. roPUCl *o*t'*"u' , 311"53#E? YB 8.
Two CD CoPies BM l*- BSR HIGH COURT DATED:3011212024 I i E S rA r(: 1 k ORDER 17 FEB 2[25 a o WP. No. 23965 of 2015 oE spatc ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {t ,_--+- | ttl>l o-S 't llc o\Li-c5
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.