Telangana High Court
A. Dhanraj vs The District Collector, on 22 September, 2025
1
SK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.2780 of 2012
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 in Proc.No.B/31166/2010 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.2 and 1 vide orders in Proc.No.449/2011 dated 20.08.2011 and E7/5807/2011 dated 28.12.2011 respectively, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the father of petitioner No.1 has purchased land admeasuring to an extent of 2735 Square Yards, situated outside Lal-Darwaja, Boiguda Mohalla (Kandikal Gate), Hyderabad from one 2 SK, J Ghousia Begum @ Choti Begum, wife of late Abdul Razak through registered sale deed bearing No.1325/1958 dated 22.12.1958. The said Ghousia Begum had purchased the said property from Mohd.Moinuddin Ahmed S/o. Mohd.Hidayat Ali under a registered sale deed No.214/1954 dated 21.05.1954.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the father of the petitioner No.1 had two brothers viz., Jagannadham @ Jangaiah and Laxmaiah. Petitioner No.2 is the son of Jagannadham and petitioner No.3 is the son of Laxmaiah. After the death of their fathers, the petitioners being the successors-in-interest of their respective fathers are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The ancestral house of the petitioners is situated at a distance of furlong from the subject land of 300 sq. yards, which is surrounded by a compound wall on four sides. During his life time, the father of the 3 SK, J petitioner No.1 has filed a declaration in respect of the subject land of 300 Sq.Yards under Urban Land Ceiling Act along with the properties owned by him.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that while it being so, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar has issued a notice bearing No.C/2648/2010 dated 30.12.2010 under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1905 (for short 'Land Encroachment Act') to the petitioners alleging that the subject land is Government land. In reply to the said notice, the petitioners have requested to furnish the necessary documents. Instead of furnishing the documents as sought by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 issued another notice No.B/31166/ 2010 on 31.01.2011 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act to vacate the premises within two days. In response thereto, the petitioners have field a 4 SK, J reply on 25.11.2011, wherein they asserted their title to the said land and requested the respondent No.3 to drop further proceedings contending that the entries in the Town Survey Land Records ( for short 'TSLR)' based on which notices were issued, cannot form the basis for initiating action under the Land Encroachment Act and also requested to give an opportunity of personal hearing and for title documents of the Government, but no such document was furnished to the petitioners.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that challenging the notices dated 30.12.2010 and 31.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal in File No.B/449/2011 before the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer and the said appeal was dismissed on 20.08.2011. During the time of hearing, the petitioners have submitted extract of 5 SK, J TSLR and copy of village Map of Kandikal, but the respondent No.2 has not considered the said documents. The village map clearly shows that the entire lands of Kandikal village including the subject land are 'Abadi', thus the order of the respondent No.2 is contrary to the record and is perverse.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that against the order of dismissal dated 20.08.2011, the petitioners filed Revision in Proc.No.E7/5807/2011 before the respondent No.1 and the said revision was also dismissed on 28.12.2011. The petitioners have been in longstanding possession of the subject land for the past more than 50 years and it is settled law that the summary proceedings under Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked in case of person(s) in possession of land for lengthy period of time. The longstanding possession gives presumption of title and that the 6 SK, J proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act cannot be initiated for eviction of such longstanding possessors. The Land Encroachment Act is a special statute which enables the Government to protect its land and remove encroachment. While initiating eviction proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act are summary in nature where the authority cannot go into the disputed questions of title and it does not involve the process of adjudication by leading evidence and proceedings of the respondent No.3 are without jurisdiction. After implementation of the Town Survey in Hyderabad city during the year, 1980 the earlier records had been superseded by the TSLR and it is settled law that the TSLR is not an evidence of conclusive title and the entries in TSLR do not confer any title on the Government.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed 7 SK, J to examine the certified copy of the sketch map issued by the responded No.3 in Proc.No.1907/2011, which was issued to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. In the said location sketch of TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271 in the village map of Kandikal, the land of the petitioners to an extent of 1864 Sq.Meters is shown as part of 'Abadi' and there is nothing in the sketch to indicate that it is G-Abadi land. In column No.10 of the TSLR it is shown only as 'Abadi', however, in Column No.20 it is shown as 'G- Abadi'. Since there is discrepancy in the entries of TSLR, the entry in column No.10 prevails over the entry in column No.20, because the column No.10 deals with the name of the 'registered owner' whereas the column No.20 deals with the name of the 'enjoyer'. The petitioners are still in possession of the land in question and requested to set aside the impugned orders.
8
SK, J
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions, relied on the following Judgments:
1. Hyderabad Potteries Private Ltd., Vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and another 1
2. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hyderabad Potteries Private Ltd., 2
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another 3
4. G.Satyanarayna Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 4
10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3 would submit that the land in question admeasuring to an extent of 300 Sq.yards has been identified on ground which is situated in Sy.No.NIL, correlated to TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271, in Kandikal Village of Bandlaguda Mandal of Hyderabad District and the said land falls under 'Abadi' and the 'Abadi lands' do not have any survey number and 1 2001 SCC ONLINE AP 397 2 (2010) 5 SCC 382 3 (1982) 2 SCC 134 4 2014 (4) ALD 358 9 SK, J therefore for identification of 'Abadi lands' they rely upon the village map of the concerned village. The Town Survey was implemented in the TSLR after the publication of the details of Sy.No.NIL, in AP Gazette No.35, dated 29.03.1975 and as per the TSLR, the corresponding TS No.33, Block Q, Ward 271 correlates to old Sy.No.NIL of Kandikal village and recorded in Column No.20 as 'G-Abadi" and in Column No.22 recorded as 'Vacant land'. The Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.1039, Revenue Department, dated 13.09.1972 as regards classification of the 'Abadi lands'. After completion of the Town Survey, the land in question was recorded as Government land in TSLR by issuing Notification under Section 13 (1) of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and also published in the District Gazette No.35, dated 29.05.1976 and the entries in the TSLR have become final and conclusive proof after publication of Notification Under Sec.13 (1) of the said Act, unless the 10 SK, J same was challenged and modified by a decree of Civil suit within three years from the date of publication of notification in the District Gazette as stipulated under Section 14 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. But no person has challenged the said entries by filing a Civil Suit within the stipulated period, therefore the Town Survey conducted under the provisions of the Act is binding in all the parties. The land in question is a Government land and the Government is absolute owner and possessor of the land in TS.No.3, Block Q Ward 271 of Kandikal Village and as such the alleged sale transaction by the father of the petitioner No.1 or his alleged vendors has no validity in the eye of law and no one except the Government has right, title or interest over it.
11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, on 06.12.2010 the Mandal Surveyor has submitted report stating that the 11 SK, J Government land admeasuring to an extent of 1864 Square Yards in TS No.33, Block-Q, Ward 271 is being encroached by the petitioners herein by constructing compound wall around it, for which the respondents restrained them, however, they did not stop the work. In view of the same the respondent No.3 filed a complaint in Chatrinaka Police Station about the encroachment, in spite of the same, the petitioners did not stop the construction. Thereafter the respondent No.3 issued a Notice under Action 7 of the A.P. Encroachment Act, 1905 vide LR.No.C/2648/2010 dated 30.12.2010. In spite of receiving the said notice, the petitioners did not respond and not even submitted their representation till 13.01.2011. In pursuance to the said notice, the respondent No.3 issued orders in Proc.No.B/31166/2010 dated 13.01.2011 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act to the petitioners and asked the petitioners to vacate the subject land within two days.
12
SK, J
12. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the land in TS No.33, Block Q, Ward No.271, admeasuring 1864 Sq.yards has been vacant and is in uninterrupted possession of the Government. Out of the said extent, the petitioners have encroached an extent of 300 Sq.yards and tried to construct a compound wall with gate in the year, 2010, therefore the impugned orders were passed in proceedings No.B/31166/2010 dated 13.01.2011, Proc.No.B/499/2011, dated 20.08.2011 and Proc.No.E7/5807/2011 dated 28.12.2011 are legal and valid and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
13. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities under the Land Encroachment Act and also for eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate and the 13 SK, J revisional authorities in respect of the suit schedule property. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of 2735 sq. yards situated outside Lal-Darwaza, Boiguda Mohalla i.e., Kandikal gate, Hyderabad from one Ghousia Begum @ Choti Begum through registered sale deed document bearing No.1325/1958, dated 22.12.1958 and the same was purchased by her from one Mohd. Moinuddin Ahmed through registered sale deed document No.214/1954 dated 21.05.1954. During the life time, the father of the petitoner No.1 filed a declaration in respect of the subject land of 300 sq. yards under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 along with the other properties owned by him and they are in continuous possession of the property without any interruption. While it being so, the respondent authorities have issued notice under Section 7 of the Telangana Land Encroachment (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1905 in 14 SK, J bearing No.C/2648/2010 dated 30.12.2010 claiming that the said land is Government land. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued another notice bearing No.B/31166/2020 dated 13.01.2011 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act for evicting the petitioners from the suit schedule property. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed. In view of the same, the said orders are impugned in the writ petition.
14. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents without having any right over the property merely basing on the Town Survey Land Records have issued the impugned proceedings and the same is arbitrary and illegal and also contrary to the orders of this Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The further contention of the petitioners is that they are in longstanding possession of the property and the question of resumption does not arise. As per the 15 SK, J information given by the authorities and the location sketch of TS.No.33, Block-Q, Ward No.271 in the village map of Kandikal, the land of the petitioners to an extent of 1864 sq. meters is shown as part of Abadi and there is nothing in the sketch to indicate that it is G-abadi. In Column No.10 of the TSLR, it is shown as 'abadi' however in column No.20, it is shown as 'G- abadi' and since there is discrepancy in the entries of TSLR, the entry in Column No.10 prevails over the entry in Colum No.20 because the column No.10 deals with the name of the 'registered owner' whereas the column No.20 deals with the name of the enjoyer.
15. The contention of the respondents is that the land in question admeasuring to an extent of 300 Square Yards has been identified on ground which is situated in old Sy.No.Nil correlated to TS.No.33 Block-Q, Ward No.271 in Kandikal Village of Bandlaguda Mandal Hyderabad District and the said 16 SK, J land falls in 'abadi' and abadi lands do not have any survey number and therefore, for identification of abadi lands, they rely only on the village map of the concerned village. As per TSLR, the corresponding TS.No.33 Block-Q Ward No.271 correlates to Old Sy.No.Nil of Kandikal Village and recorded at Column No.20 as 'G-Abadi' and at Column No.22 recorded as 'vacant land'. The entries in the TSLR have become final and conclusive after publication of the notification under Section 13(1) of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act,1923 and the said survey was conducted under the provisions of the Act is binding on all the parties and therefore, no person has right and title over the properties.
16. The respondents are relying only on TSLR entries in Column No.20 of the suit schedule property and it was mentioned as 'G-abadi. With regard to the TSLR entries, the Judgments relied on by the learned 17 SK, J counsel for the petitioners are squarely apply to the instant case.
17. In Thummala Krishna Rao's case (3 supra), the relevant portion of the Judgment in para No.9 is extracted as under;
"The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far That was also the view taken by the learned single Judge him self in another case which is reported in Meherunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was affirmed by a Division Bench. It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts " which raise a bond fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the Ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is hl occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bonafide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law."18
SK, J
18. In Hyderabad Potteries' case (2 supra), the relevant portion of the Judgment in para No.26 is extracted as under;
" The sole basis of the Appellant to claim the land was on the strength of entries made in survey records showing that the schedule property was surveyed as T.S. No. 4 /2, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram village having an area of 19214 sq. meters showing it as a gap area i.e. un-surveyed area as per the old survey records and as such it could only be declared to be Government land as has been recorded in Column No. 20 of the T.S.L.R. Apart from the said revenue record and issuance of gazette notification as mentioned hereinabove, no other material document was filed by the Appellant to show that the said land belonged only to Government. It is trite that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied on for proof of establishing the title as such."
19. In G. Satyanaraya's case (4 supra), the relevant portion of the Judgment in para Nos.159 and 176 is extracted as under;
"159. Detailed Town Survey was carried out in some municipalities and Panchayats in Andhra Area. In Telangana region detailed Town Survey of the twin cities was carried out in 1966-70. The object of undertaking detailed surveys is not only 19 SK, J to survey the boundary between the streets and private properties, but also the boundaries of all private properties whether built up or vacant, Government lands and Municipality lands . The system of survey held is quite different from the system followed in respect of villages containing open lands. The nature and scope of entries in TSLR fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.115 and 160 of 2000. P.Venkatramam Reddy.,J (as his Lordship then was) while speaking for the Division Bench held that entries in TSLR are no doubt relevant, but they are not conclusive; that TSLR cannot be regarded as the sole guiding factor while dealing with applications for building permissions; and that TSLRs have to be considered in conjunction with other documents which the applicant would like to place reliance upon."
176. The petitioners have claimed ownership of the land in respect of a common property based on a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1420/1983. The petitioners have traced their title through their grand mother late Sultan Khatoon who has purchased an extent of 23445 sq. mtrs. of land under registered sale deed 932 of 1336 Fasli (1926). In O.S.No.1420/1983, compromise decree dated 2-12-1983, was obtained by the petitioners whereunder the property was partitioned between them. The proceedings under the 1905 Act were initiated only based on the entry in the TSLR describing the land as G-Abadi. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not denied the existence of registered sale deed under which the petitioners grand mother has purchased the property as far back as the year 1926. They have also not disputed the plea of the petitioners that for almost 90 years, their family has been in possession of the property. The long standing uninterrupted possession of the petitioners family raises a reasonable 20 SK, J presumption that the property in question is a private property and the same does not belong to the Government. Such a presumption can be displaced by the Government only in a properly constituted civil proceeding. On these undisputed facts of the case, the ratio in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tummala Krishna Rao (1-supra) squarely applies. The respondents cannot therefore resort to summary proceedings of eviction under the provisions of the 1905 Act as there is a bona fide dispute relating to ownership of the land. Following the dicta laid down in Tummala Krishna Rao (1-supra) and the finding rendered by this Court on Point No.4, the only option left with the respondents is to file a civil suit. The impugned proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed with liberty to the respondents to approach the competent Civil Court.
20. The above findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court squarely apply to the instant case. In the instant case also, the respondents are not denying the execution of documents in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners except from relying on in column No.20 of the TSLR, which was mentioned the schedule land as 'G-ababi'. If the respondents have any right, they can approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their title.
21
SK, J
21. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Proceedings No.B/31166/2010 dated 13.01.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 and the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.2 and 1 vide proceedings No.B/449/2011 dated 20.08.2011 and E7/5807/2011 dated 28.12.2011 respectively. No order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous petitioners, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:22.09.2025 trr