Telangana High Court
Mir Zahid Ali Kamil vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.141 of 2000
DATE: 06.03.2026
Between:
Sri Mir Zahid Ali Kamil & others
... Appellants.
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh & others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for appeals for respondents.
This Civil Court Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.36 of 1991 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein was suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and consequential relief in respect of the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. Page 2 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs claiming joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule land admeasuring 5000 sq.yards in old Sy.No.44, Bagh Amberpet, in the compound of appurtenant land house No.12-11-1595, near Adikmet, Hyderabad, however the defendants are disputing the same. Plaintiffs claimed that they have succeeded the property from their ancestors i.e., Late Abdul Samad who was the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy Nos.44 and 45, Bagh Amberpet Village, admeasuring 18 acres 32 Guntas and 1 acre 32 guntas respectively having purchased the same from one Sri Erkal Raja Shankeriah through registered sale deed Document No.132, 24th Aban, 1329 Fasli and since then Sri Abdul Samand was in the possession and enjoyment of the entire land till his death i.e., in the year 1943 and the said property was inherited by plaintiffs' mother.
4. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land appurtenant to the residential bungalow of the plaintiffs bearing Nos.12-11-1595 and the said lands belong to in Sy.Nos.44 and 45 and that after the said purchase there was a re-survey during the year 1964 to 1969, and the Government tried to interfere with the possession by claiming that it is Government land compromise in Sy Nos.71 and 72 of Zamistanpur. Page 3 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
5. The case of the Government-defendant is that the suit schedule property is a Government land bearing T.S.No.14 Ward-144 Block, 'N' Corresponding to Revenue Survey No.71/5 of Amberpet Village, admeasuring 3408 square meter, out of the said land an extent of 2382 sq.meter is covered by road and the remaining extent of 1026 sq.yards has been handed over to Tribal Welfare Department for construction of Tribal Welfare Hostel building under a panchanama dated 21.01.1989 as per the order of the District Collector, Hyderabad.
6. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?"
7. During the course of the enquiry, to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.3 has got examined PW No.1 and marked Ex.A1 and A2. On behalf of the defendants representing the State, the concerned Mandal Revenue officer is examined as DW.1 and Dy.Director, Survey and Land Records as DW.2 and Ex.B1 toB5 were marked.
Page 4 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
8. After considering the entire evidence placed and after going into the merits of the case, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and observed that evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs is wholly insufficient to prove the right, title and possession in or over the suit schedule property, whereas the evidence of DW.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Ex.B.1 to B.5 clearly establish that the suit schedule land is Government land in which the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in interest have no right, title or interest at any point of time.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellants on the following amount the grounds that trial Court failed to see that there was no need for identification of suit property in view of categorical admission of DW.1 and 2 and that Ex.B1 to B3 related to Zamistanpur Village but not to Amberpet.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that DW.1 himself who was Mandal Revenue officer admitted that Amberpet where the plaint schedule property is located and Zamistanpur Village are different revenue villages and that there are no boundary disputes between the two and that the plaint schedule property is situated in Amberpet Village and the trial Court admitted the Ex.B2 existence but draws adverse Page 5 of 13 NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000 observation for non-production of original of Ex.B2 and further contended that the alleged notice which was served for survey under Section 9 of Survey Act and Boundaries were not served on plaintiffs.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Wasool Baqi Register will disclose the correlation of survey numbers and it was the best evidence to clinch the issue, however the DW.2 did not produce it on the specious plea that it was in a torn and mutilated condition. He further argued and contended that defendants failed to prove that the suit schedule land has been in possession and enjoyment of Government for the last 60 years.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that since the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment and that the Government was never in possession or enjoyment of the property at any point of time. Learned counsel for the appellants further prayed this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that trial Court has discuss all the issue in detail and after considering the entire evidence Page 6 of 13 NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000 available on record, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit, which needs no interference.
14. The points which arose for consideration and substantial question of law before this Court in this appeal are that:
"1. Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by trial Court.?
2. Whether the impugned order suffer any irregularity?"
15. Admittedly, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule land admeasuring 5000 sq.yard is part and parcel of the land appurtenant to their residential building bearing No.12-11-1595 in Sy No.44 of Bagh Amberpet Village and the contentions of the defendants are that the suit schedule land which is an extent of 3408 Sq meters is located at Tank Bund and G.V.M.Road in TS.Nos.14/1 and 15, Block 'N' and Ward-144 which is Government land correlated to old Survey Nos.71/5 and 71/4 of Amberpet Village and the bunglow bearing H.No.12-11- 1595 is far away from the suit property.
16. It is also evident from the record that the plaintiffs by way of Exhibit A.2-rough sketch has tried to place before the Court the suit schedule property with the red coloured border in the rough sketch plan and the house number 12-11-1595 with adjoining houses, but Page 7 of 13 NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000 the said Exhibit A.2 does not bear any authorized signature of any person much less that of the author of the said document and therefore it cannot be treated as an authenticated document. It is borne out of the record that the plaintiffs have examined the plaintiffs No.3 as PW.1, except for the evidence of PW.1 and Exhibit A.1 and the Exhibit A.2. None of the plaintiffs have a title over to the property as per Exhibit A.1, but as per the defendant-Government which claimed a title over the property as 'Government land'.
17. DW.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Musheerabad has deposed before the trial Court that the Government allotted the entire land in T.S.No.15 and part of the land in TS.No.14/1 to Tribal Welfare Department and handover possession under panchanama dated 21.07.1987 and the same was assigned to Sri N.S.V.Subba Rao (Blind Man) and Sri NSV Seshasai (poor Artist). DW.2-Dy.Director of Survey & Land records have deposed before the trial Court that the suit schedule land is part of Amberpet Revenue Village survey during the Town Survey of the land in Zamistanpur as it is surrounded by the land of Zamistanpur and that the suit schedule land is a separate bit of land far away from the revenue village Amberpet and therefore the suit schedule land bearing T.S.Nos.14/1 and 15 are recorded as in Ex.B.1 Page 8 of 13 NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000 to B.3 as the land of Zamistanpur revenue village and the land in the old Survey Nos.71/5 and 71/4 of Amberpet Village correlated to TS.Nos.14/1 and 15 Zamistanpur.
18. Exhibit A2 is a rough sketch plan. Exhibit A.1 which is a sale deed which is dated 24th Aban 1329, wherein the PW.1 in his evidence has specifically stated that their mother maternal grandfather purchased the Ac.18-32 Gts in survey No.44 and Ac.1-32 Guntas in survey No.45 of Bagh Amberpet. The defendants are disputing their truth and genuineness of the Exhibit A.1 as the plaintiffs could not placed the originals of Ex.A1, therefore the learned trial Court has given a proper finding that there is dispute regarding the plaintiffs being in possession of the land which plaintiffs to have been inherited under Ex. A1. However, as per the DW.1 and DW.2 the said land which the plaintiffs claims is to be in survey No.71/5 correlated to TS No.14/1 and the land in old survey No.71/4 was correlated to T.S.No.15.
19. In view of the above contention and rival contention and upon perusal of record, it is evident there is a dispute regarding the survey numbers, the land which is claiming by the plaintiffs and defendants are in different survey numbers and there is no identification of the Page 9 of 13 NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000 land. The survey was conducted in 1964-69, as per Section of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 which is Ex.B.4 and B.5, right from the year 1962-63 relates to T.S.No.71/5 and 74/4 respectively, which shows that the said lands are recorded as Amber Tank Bund along with road and the pahanies for the years even prior to Town Survey, the land in Sy Nos.71/5 and 71/4 correlating to T.S.Nos.14 and 15 are being recorded as Government Land and the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title are not being recorded as registered holders or even occupies of the land even prior to the commencement of the Town Survey in the year 1964. The Town Survey conducted in between 1965-69 by issuing a notification as required under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, which was published in the Gazette. However, the plaintiffs does not denied the survey but contended that statutory notice was duly not issued and serve on the plaintiffs, therefore the Survey was not conducted as per Section of the Act. However, on perusal of the Section of the Act, the notice is mandatory to the registered holder or occupiers of the land relating town which is survey and the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title or interest are recorded as registered holder or occupiers of the land in Sy Nos.71/5 and 71/4 of Amberpet Village at any point of time, hence the plaintiffs contentions cannot be accepted.
Page 10 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
20. The defendants relied upon the certified copies of the Pahanis and Ex.B.4 to prove its case in respect of survey No. 71/5 of Amberpet village, whereas in the said column No.11, the land was recorded as 'Government land'. Ex.B.5 is the certified proof copy of Pahani for the years 1963-1964, 1980-1981 relating to the land in survey No.71/4 of Amberpet village. It is also evident from the record and in the cross examination it is evident that the DW.1 and Dw.2 i.e., Mandal Revenue officer, Musheerabad and Dy.Director of Survey & Land records who has also specifically stated that the suit schedule property is situated in old survey Nos.71/4 and 71/5 of Amberpet village correlated to survey number TS.Nos.14/1 and 15 Zamistanpur and no correlation of old Sy Nos.44 and 45 as claimed by the plaintiffs.
21. Admittedly, the Zamistanpur and Amberpet are totally different revenue villages and there is no boundary dispute between the opposite two villages and it is also admitted that the suit schedule property falls within the Amberpet revenue village and Ex.B3 sketches in respect of lands inside Zamistanpur Revenue village. The suit schedule property which is part of Amberpet revenue village was surveyed during the town survey of land in Zamistanpur revenue village as it is surrounded by the lands of Zamistanpur. Page 11 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
22. And the suit schedule property is separate bit of land far away from the revenue village of Amberpet as per the village map of the Amberpet revenue village. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not steps to produce the original registered sale dated 24th Aban, 1329 Fasli along with map which claimed to have purchased plaintiffs material grand father and also there is no relevant extracts Wasool Baqi Register as the memo filed by the Assistant Government Pleader that the original Wasool Baqi register is in complete mutilated condition, therefore no certified copy or true copy could not be issued, therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that that no mutation proceedings have been placed to show that suit scheduled property purchased by plaintiffs' material grand father and are being inherited by plaintiffs through succession. The plaintiffs did not take any steps for the identification of property and no advocate commissioner was appointed and the plaintiffs are only relying on the certified copy of sale deeds and even the said original sale deed were not produced. Ex A.2 which is a sketch plan or location map has no signatures of the competent authority, therefore the said document has no legal sanctity. Page 12 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
24. It is clearly evident from the above discussion that the plaintiffs and the respondent-defendants are claiming independent right title over the properties and as per the plaintiffs it is being in the survey Nos.44 and 45 though at one point of time it is said that the said old survey No.44 of the under Amberpet village correlates to new survey Nos.71/5 and 71/4, however as per the defendants, it is the survey Nos.71/4 and 71/5 of Amberpet Village correlated to T.S.Nos.14/1 and 15 Zamistanpur and Exs.B.4 to B.5 and evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 also confirms the same that from 1962 to 1963, it relates to TS Nos.71/4 and 71/5 respectively. The plaintiffs/appellants herein have not placed any substantial evidence to prove that suit scheduled property is located in old Sy Nos.71/5 and 71/4, Amberpet Village and was correlated to T.S.Nos.14/1 and 15 of Zamistanpur and the Amberpet village and Zamistanpur village are totally distinct and different from each other and far away from the both the revenue villages. It appears from the evidence that plaintiffs have independent claim, but there is a question of identity of the property and location of the property is in dispute, except the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 and A2 nothing has been placed by the plaintiffs to support of their claim, though plaintiffs are bound to place all the material evidence and the burden lies upon the plaintiffs.
Page 13 of 13
NNR,J CCCA No.141 of 2000
25. In the absence of evidence placed by the plaintiffs, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs failed to proved and established the very core identity of the suit schedule property and failed to prove the title and possession of the property. Therefore, the findings given by the trial Court in respect of the title of the plaintiffs is basing on the sound principles of law and no fault can be found with the same.
26. Accordingly, City Civil Court Appeal deserves to be and hereby dismissed confirming the order and judgment in OS No.36 of 1991, dated 31.12.1999 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.. No Costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date: 06.03.2026 SHA