Telangana High Court
Govt. Of A.P., Rep By Dist. Collector, vs K. Narsimha on 3 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
APPEAL SUITS No. 1893, 1896, 1897, 1898 of 2002, 144, 145,
178, 179, 597, 598, 1038 and 2651 OF 2003
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of Appellants - State, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Akkam Eshwar and Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 1893 of 2002, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1896 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri Akkam Eshwar, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1897 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1898 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 144 of 2003, Sri M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri P. Raghavendra, A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 145 of 2003, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel 2 for respondents in A.S.No. 178 of 2003, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy and Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 179 of 2023, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Akkam Eshwar, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 597 of 2003, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 598 of 2003, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1038 of 2003, Sri P. Raghavendra and Sri G. Adiya Goud, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 2651 of 2003.
2. This batch of Appeals is filed by the State of Telangana represented by District Collector arising out of common Judgment in OS No. 850 of 2000 and batch dated 26-04-2002 whereunder suits were decreed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, these appeals are taken up for hearing together.
3. For the sake convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as referred to in the suit.
4. It is the definite case of plaintiff in all the suits that he/she is owner and possessor of respective Acs.3.00 of land in 3 Survey No. 59 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They sought for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants and their officers from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their respective extents and to grant mutation in their favour. Plaintiffs state that patta under Rule 9 (g) was granted under Laoni Rules, 1950 either to them or to their ancestors by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West through proceedings No. A9/10897/61, dated 13-12-1961 and auction was conducted in December, 1961 wherein they were the highest bidders, therefore, they were issued written permission on 13-12-1961. Consequently, plaintiffs and their ancestors are in physical possession and enjoyment of suit lands and that they submitted representations to the revenue authorities for mutation of their names as pattadars. When the representations did not evoke any response, plaintiffs filed Writ Petitions which were disposed of with a direction to the 2nd defendant to consider their representations for sanction of mutation. Pursuant to the said direction, orders were passed by the 2nd defendant on 09-12-1997 rejecting their request stating that lands are classified as 'Kharij Khata' and the written permission which was given does not amount to assignment. In the said 4 order, the 2nd defendant took the stand that plaintiffs are treated as encroachers/ shivaigimmender and also held that there was ban on assignment at relevant point of time, therefore, mutation cannot be ordered.
5. It is also the case of plaintiffs that they challenged the rejection orders passed by the 2nd defendant by filing Writ Petitions, wherein, initially, interim stay of dispossession was granted and subsequently, Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. Against the said decision, Writ Appeals were filed which were also disposed of directing plaintiffs to approach civil court, as several questions of fact and law are involved and ordered order of Status Quo. Plaintiffs also took alternative plea that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their suit lands and cultivating from 1951, thereby they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. With these averments, plaintiffs sought for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to mutate their names in revenue records.
6. Defendant No.2 - Mandal Revenue Officer filed written statement which was adopted by defendant No.1 - District Collector. It is their case that, land in Survey No. 59 of Kondapur Village is admeasuring Acs. 57.09 guntas; plaintiffs 5 are encroachers over the said land; the revenue collected was encroachment fees; alleged written permission is temporary in nature; no amount was fixed for payment of land revenue and the land was not an absolute assignment by the date the alleged patta rules were amended and GOMS No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958 was in force; the alleged permission is a created one to grab valuable lands and that the signature of the Tahsildar is dated 21-12-1961 and the date of issue of certificate is 13-12-1961 and that itself shows doubt on the validity of patta, therefore, they are fraudulent in nature and that there was prohibition of assignment of lands within ten miles belt area of Hyderabad city in terms of GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961; Gairan lands are not available for assignment and they denied the ownership and it was asserted Kondapur Village falls within 10 miles belt area from Hyderabad City, therefore, when there was a ban through GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961, the question of assignment under the superseded rules i.e. Laoni Rules, 1950 does not arise. They also asserted that 1988-89 onwards, Government is in possession of the land and they paid revenue as encroacher to the Government. The subject land is already covered with Chandra Raja Rajeswara Rao foundation Ac.6.00, RTA RR District Ac. 5.00, APSRTC Ac. 10.00, Jeer 6 Education Trust Ac.5.00, weaker section colony Ac.10.00, graveyard Ac.3.00 and the balance land available is Ac.10.19 only out Ac.57.09 guntas and the balance land is also in possession of Government, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction.
7. Upon the said pleadings, the trail Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the proceedings No. A9/10897/61, dated: 13-12-1961 is only a temporary written permission as alleged by the defendants ?
II. Whether the proceedings No. A9/10897/61, dt: 13-12-1961 was issued without following the procedure laid down under Laoni Rules? III. Whether the alleged patta certificate relied upon by the plaintiff is true and genuine one?
IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner and possessor of suit?
V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for?
VI. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration to revenue authorities for mutation of his name as pattadar and possessor in respect of suit land? VII. Whether the plaintiff perfected his title over suit land by adverse possession?
VIII. To what relief?
8. The trail Court, having framed the above issues and by considering Exs.A-1 to A-216 and Exs. B-1 to B-26, granted the relief of declaration, injunction and also to mutate the names of the plaintiffs in revenue records.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the present batch of Appeals is filed mainly stating that plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree and pattas relied were created. A perusal of the documents would show that they are temporary in nature and 7 that possession of plaintiffs was believed by the trial Court in spite of any documentary evidence and that Court below interpreted GOMS No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958 in favour of plaintiffs and also failed to consider the documents filed by appellant in proper perspective especially GOMS No. 1122, dated:29-06-1961.
10. Now the points for consideration are
1. Whether plaintiffs have established their case while praying the relief of declaration and injunction?
2. Whether the Court below is justified in granting decree without considering the evidence on record in proper perspective ?
11. It is the definite case of plaintiffs that either themselves or their ancestors were granted patta under Rule 9 (g) of Laoni Rules, 1950 on 13-12-1961 and they were trying for mutation in revenue records and in that connection, they filed Writ Petitions which were allowed and that there was an order in Writ Appeals No. 1689, 1690 and 1691 of 1998, dated 20-12-2000 whereunder the Hon'ble Division Bench directed plaintiffs to approach the civil Court seeking declaration, as there is serious dispute with regard to title etcetera.
12. Anomalies in 9(g) patta: The crucial document upon which plaintiffs laid their claim is the alleged patta dated 13-12-1961 issued under Rule 9 (g) of Laoni Rules, 1950. A 8 perusal of the said patta shows that it was temporarily granted to enter into the land; the allottee is liable to pay revenue to the Government; after survey by the department of Land Records in the office of Collector shall fix the extent and the revenue to be paid and upon such fixation, revenue shall have to be paid and that the land should not be alienated, except for enjoyment.
13. It is important to note, the pattas on which plaintiffs are relying are not tallying with Form G patta prescribed under the Laoni Rules, 1950. There is no clause temporary in the prescribed form. Whereas in the suit documents there is a clause that delivery is temporary in nature. If really, it is 9(g) patta granted to plaintiffs, there will not be a condition stating that it is temporary in nature. As already observed, there is no such expression in the prescribed Form G shown in Laoni Rules. Another glaring illegality is that patta was issued on 13-12-1961 and it was signed by the then Tahsildar on Hyderabad West on 21-12-1961. Therefore, issuance date is earlier than the actual date of signing by the Tahsildar. It throws any amount of doubt to believe the pattas as genuine i.e. Exs. A-1, A-25, A-42, A-64, A-79, A-102, A-116, A-131, A-156, A-169, A-187 and A-200 for two reasons: one, these pattas are not tallying with the prescribed Form G patta 9 shown in Laoni Rules, 1950, pattas cannot be readily believed. Under Laoni Rules, when 9 (g) pattas were issued, there is no clause stating that it is temporary in nature. Secondly, date of issue is eight days before the actual signing by the Tahsildar i.e. 21-12-1961. These anomalies are to be explained and satisfied by plaintiffs who are seeking declaration of title. In this case, plaintiffs have not made any attempt to clarify these doubts. However, the Court below believed the pattas on the ground pattas must have been prepared earlier and thereafter, signed by the Tahsildar. This kind of interpretation by the court below is totally wrong and not acceptable.
14. Plaintiffs have to prove:
It is settled law, if plaintiffs have to succeed in a suit for declaration, they must establish on the strength of their own title. The onus to prove the title to the property in question is on plaintiffs. In Union Bank of India vs. Vasavi Cooperation Housing Society 1, it was held that in a suit for declaration, the burden is heavily on plaintiff. Similarly, in another recent Judgement, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 14803 of 2024 (Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma) reiterated the same position of law. Therefore, this 1 AIR 2014 SC 937 10 Court holds that plaintiffs have not proved, therefore, they are not entitled for declaratory relief.
15. Revised Assignment Policy:
Nextly, the pattas cannot be believed for the reason that the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had brought about revised assignment policy through GOMS No. 1406 (Revenue), dated 25-07-1958. These assignment policies were issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1357 Fasli in supersession of all previous orders on the subject applicable to Telangana area. Therefore, by the date of alleged patta issued on 13-12-1961, revised assignment policy came into force on 25-07-1958. In that backdrop, the then Tahsildar of Hyderabad West issuing such patta does not arise at all and the said GO was marked as Ex B-21. Therefore, the pattas relied upon by plaintiffs are highly doubtful. Defendants also took a stand that there was a ban of assignment of land which is ten miles away from Hyderabad vide GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961 and Kondapur village is within ten miles from Hyderabad city. The said aspect with regard to distance is not denied by plaintiffs. A perusal of Ex. B-26 GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961 shows there was a ban of assignment. Therefore, the question of 11 issuance of patta when there was a ban on 13-12-1961 does not arise.
16. However, the Court below held that there is no repeal of Laoni Rules in the revised rules of assignment issued through GOMS No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958. It failed to understand that the said GO was issued in supersession of earlier orders. Therefore, the attempt made by the Court below stating that there is no repeal and Laoni rules will also prevail even after issuance of GOMS No. 1406 is unwarranted.
17. Burden of proof:
Ordinarily, in a suit for declaration, burden lies on plaintiff. That apart, as per Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, burden lies on plaintiff to establish that they have valid patta in their favour particularly, in a context where defendants have taken a plea that under the revised policy, the Rules were changed vide G. O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958 (Ex. B-21). But, plaintiffs have not made any attempt how they got patta under the old Rules framed in 1950, when Rules were revised in 1958 in supersession of earlier Rules on 13.12.1961 by which time revised rules were in vogue. Added to that, there was ban created through G. O. Ms. No. 1122, dated 29.06.1961 (Ex. B-26) not to assign the land within 10 miles from 12 Hyderabad city. Therefore, defendants have demonstrated by filing Exs. B-21 and B-26 that there was no possibility to issue patta on 13.12.1961. This stand of defendants could not be repelled by plaintiffs by adducing any sort of evidence. On that ground also, plaintiffs miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. Hence, the case as set up by plaintiffs that they were granted 9G patta based on Laoni Rules cannot be accepted. However, the Court below gave findings basing on oral evidence that even after issuance of Ex. B-26 G.O.Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958 that pattas were issued under Laoni rules and further said there is no expressed provisions in G. O. Ms. No. 1406 repealing Laoni rules and there is nothing like implied repeal of Rules. From a reading of the lengthy Judgment of Court below, it appears, the said Court had made out a case for plaintiffs. In fact, through G.O. Ms. No. 1406, revised Rules were framed in 1958 in supersession of earlier Rules. Therefore, the Court below is not right in saying that Laoni Rules were not repealed. The finding given in para-No. 39 of the Judgment is incorrect and not in accordance with law.
18. Possession of Plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs asked for permanent injunction against defendants. The Hon'ble Division Bench while directing 13 plaintiffs in Writ Appeals No. 1689, 1690 and 1691 of 1998, dated 20.10.2000 (Ex. A-16) to approach the civil Court for declaration, granted an order of Status Quo. The said order of Status Quo does not mean plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Particularly in a situation where defendants have given the details of the institutions which are in possession of the land, plaintiffs did not file even a single document to establish their possession when defendants asserted that they are in possession from 1988-1989 onwards Government is in possession and no land revenue was levied.
19. In para No.47 of the Judgement, the Court below noticed the stand of defendants that they have allotted lands to different institutions. In the written statement, the details of allotments were given, however, held that the so-called allotments and leasing out the lands by the Government to various institutions is nothing but to defeat the rights of plaintiffs. The Court below in spite of definite stand of defendants and in spite of plaintiffs failing to file any proof of possession, presumed the possession of plaintiffs and granted the relief of permanent injunction.
20. A careful perusal of Form 9(g) patta relied upon by plaintiffs 'after completion of podi survey and Land Records 14 department in Collector office shall fix the extent and revenue and upon such fixation the revenue has to be paid". Therefore, fixation of extent and revenue was not even done and there is no material on record. Hence, the extent and boundaries mentioned in the suit are not definite and imaginary. There is no panchanamma to show that each individual was given Ac.3.00 gts of land with definite boundaries.
21. The written submissions of Plaintiffs:
Written submissions are filed in respect of all the Appeals filed by the State. In the lengthy written submissions, in all paragraphs, they explained how the Court below dealt with the case and supported the findings and they have also tried to bring to the notice of depositions of PWs.1 to 13 and exhibits therein. It is the stand of defendants that, after issuance of pattas under 9 (g), sub division of land shall take place i.e. PODI and supplementary sethwar will be issued. DW-1 stated he is not aware whether supplementary sethwar is issued or not. Simply because DW-1 has no knowledge of issuance of supplementary sethwar, it cannot be presumed that pattas were granted to each plaintiffs and land is sub-divided. The Court 15 below believed the pattas by taking aid from Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provision envisages if the document is more than 30-year-old, it can be presumed to be genuine. But, in this case, when the suit document itself is doubtful and when plaintiffs failed to establish its genuineness, presumption available under Section 90 is not helpful. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is definitely wrong on this issue.
22. The Court below also tried to rely upon the discrepancies in the evidence of defendants and granted relief to plaintiffs. It is the settled law, plaintiffs cannot depend upon the weakness in the defense and they have to establish their own case and the same principle is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Vs. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar 2. Further, with regard to possession, plaintiffs pleaded that they were in settled possession although from 40 years. The Court below being a fact-finding court, cannot presume possession in the absence of any documents. The documents filed on behalf of plaintiffs do not establish actual 2 (2020) 7 SCC 27 16 physical possession. Unfortunately, the Court below did guess work on this aspect.
23. In Appeal Suit No. 1897 of 2002, a stand was taken in their written submissions regarding register of assignment and the court below found fault for not producing assignment register. The witnesses on behalf of defendants stated that assignment register is not available with them. In such a situation, plaintiffs have not taken any steps to summon the register. Even after summoning, if the register is not produced, then adverse inference can be drawn, but not in a case of this nature.
24. In this case, plea of adverse possession is not available to plaintiffs, as they claim that they have come into possession of suit land. The principle of adverse possession starts with wrong and becomes adverse to the owner after a continuous uninterrupted possession for period of 12 years in respect of private property and 30 years in respect of Government property. When, admittedly, plaintiffs have come into possession through a patta said to have been issued by the Government, it is not open for them to claim that they have acquired right by adverse possession. It is relevant to note, in law, plaintiffs cannot take alternative pleas. In this case, having 17 taken a plea that they were granted pattas under 9 (g), they are estopped from taking alternative pleas of adverse possession. Therefore, in the written submissions also, apart from oral arguments, this Court does not find any merit for consideration.
25. Third Party rights:
In these Appeals, implead applications were filed stating that there was a suit OS No. 1364/2008 filed for specific performance against plaintiffs herein on the strength of agreement of sale dated 06-11-2000 alienating Ac.36.00 in favour of plaintiff therein. The present suits are filed on 27-12-2000 and the agreement of sale is dated 06-11-2000. After the decree, suit for specific performance was filed and a compromise decree was taken for specific performance on 16-10-2008 and execution petition was also filed for execution of decree in OS No. 1364 of 2008. Therefore, immediately after execution of agreement of sale in favour of implead petitioner, the present suits are filed by plaintiffs. But, nowhere, it is stated they have already entered into an agreement of sale in favour of third parties. As no relief can be granted to plaintiffs, equally implead petitioner also does not get any relief. From an overall reading of the entire file, it appears that serious attempt is made 18 by interested persons to knock away the valuable government land.
26. Therefore, for all the reasons, this Court holds that plaintiffs have failed to establish title and possession to grant the declaratory relief. Hence, the batch of Appeals deserves to be allowed.
27. Accordingly, all the Appeals are allowed by setting aside the Decree and Judgement of the Court below dated 26-04-2002 in O.S.Nos. 850 of 2000 and batch. No costs.
28. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 03rd September 2025 ksld 19