Telangana High Court
P.Vaman Rao, Hyderabad. vs The Dist.Collector, Hyderabad Another on 8 September, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 22512 of 2007
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the action of the respondents in failing to carry out the necessary corrections in Town Survey records by including the name of the petitioner in Column No.20 in respect of premises No.6-3-883/1, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500082 (corresponding to T.S.No.20, Block-G, Ward 90, Village Khairatabad, Hyderabad District) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct them to carry out necessary corrections in Town Survey Records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land with building thereon at premises No.6-3-883/1, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500082 (corresponding to T.S.No.20, Block-G, Ward 90, Village Khairatabad, Hyderabad District) with uninterrupted possession. It appears that through the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, had issued draft notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act Memo No.D3/142/2005, dated 27.01.2005 published in the Deccan 2 Chronicle, whereby subsequently a notice under reference No.B/359/2003, dated 02.03.2005, a notice was served on several members including the petitioner calling for objections if any and the petitioner submits that objections were filed and that only front space was taken without affecting the building. However, the Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vide proceedings No.B/359/2003, dated 23.05.2005 rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. It appears that initially there was a total extent of 21,728 sq.yards, out of which certain alienations were made and the petitioner succeeded only to vacant land as per the registered Will executed by his late aunty Smt.Bhavani Bhai vide Doc.No.8 of 1964. After subsequent acquisition, the total area of the property which is held by the petitioner has now come to 1105 sq.yards and the petitioner contends that no compensation was paid to the land acquired in spite of several attempts and letters issued to the Municipal Commissioner. It appears that the petitioner has constructed commercial complex and the property was assessed and subsequently Municipal Tax was paid. However, the main grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of his succession to the property and that he is very much in possession and has constructed commercial complex on the subject land comprising of 1105 sq.yards, but there is no record in the town survey land 3 record in respect of the said property in T.S.No.20, Block G, Ward 90, Village Khairtabad, Hyderabad, whereby the column No.20 is shown as blank. Thereafter, Since the petitioner's name was not included in the draft notification issued by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, the petitioner has addressed the letters on 22.08.2005 and 02.09.2005 to enquire whether the land was required for the purpose of the proposed road widening or not. However, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition had issued Memo No.B/359/2005/1053, dated 02.09.2005 stating that the subject property is a Government land and that the petitioner has encroached under Government land. Subsequently, the petitioner has addressed a letter questioning the memo dated 02.09.2005 and letters on various dates i.e., on 03.09.2005, 08.05.2005 and 08.07.2006 for inclusion of his name in the relevant column 20 of Town Survey Records. The petitioner further submits that he has been pursuing the matter with the office of the respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and other Revenue Officials to get the Town Survey Records corrected to include his name in column 20 and that he also enclosed the title deed copies along with his representation in support of his claim. Subsequently the concerned MRO and the Inspector from the office of respondent No.2 have inspected the premises of the 4 petitioner and the respondent No.2 gave his findings in his letter No.A2/355/2006, dated 31.10.2006, which read as follows:
"As per documents submitted by the applicant it clearly shown that the applicant and his aunt (late Smt.K.Bhavani Bai) have been in uninterrupted possession and ownership since 1963.
In FCO file also it is clearly mentioned that Survey Nos.177, 178, 179 and 180 which are co- related to T.S.No.1 to 15 and 17 to 20 which are Patta Lands as per Pahani (The Xerox Copy of FCO files is submitted herewith it is clearly shows that from the documents produced by the applicant and from FCO file the applicants property is a private land and showing the blank in Col.No.20 of FCOLR and Block-G, Ward-90 T.S.No.20 clerical mistake only.
Further it is submitted that the PD Sketch, Correlation sketch and Khandam LRs are verified with the property, the T.S.No.20 in Block-G, Ward No.90 is correlating to the Sy.No.177/Part. Survey No.177 is a Patta Land." Copy of the said letter is annexed hereto as Ex.P-24.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on advice, in view of the minor clerical mistakes/omissions in Town 5 Survey Records and as per the guidelines issued under circular no.N3/1373/2005, dated 31.03.2005 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, Hyderabad District is competent authority to carry out the corrections in Town Survey Records and issue necessary proceedings for effecting mutations. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of several representations, the matter has not been resolved. Hence this writ petition and the petitioner prays that an appropriate orders may be passed.
5. This Court without going into the merits of the case and only confining to the extent of the letters/representations dated 03.09.2005 and 08.07.2006 made to the authorities, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders by putting notice to the petitioner and accord him a fair opportunity of hearing by taking into consideration the findings of the inspection letter dated 31.10.2006 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
6
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 08.09.2022 bak 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 22512 of 2007 Date: 08.09.2022 bak