Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sri Jaffer Ali Shareef is one of the 35 individuals-assignees to whom Sarfekhas purported to have assigned land. The said original list of 35 assignees was referred to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Hyderabad, who opined through letter dated 29-5-1982 that it is a forged document. As such, it is stated, Jaffer Ali Shareef did not get any right, interest or title over the land in S. No. 129/6 measuring Ac.6.20 guntas. Pursuant to the issue of notices and publication in papers, Karamath Ali had put in a petition on 10-9-1981 stating that he purchased the land Ac.6.20 guntas in S. No.129/6 from Jqffer Ali Shareef. He had also filed as many as 9 documents along with his petition. The enquiry officer seems to have held that the list of assignees was proved as a forged document and therefore, Jqffer Ali Shareef one of the assignees in the list, gets no right, interest or title over the said land. So far as the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 is concern, the comment is that it does not indicate the presence of any such survey number like 129/6. On the contrary it shows Survey No.403 against which the name of Jqffer Ali is noted is classified as Government Poramboke. Therefore, it is stated, Jqffer Ali was only an encroacher. It is further stated that in the last page of Khasra Pahani, in which the names of unauthorised occupants are mentioned, including Jqffer Ali Shareef, are found in different ink and different writing. With reference to the 9th document, copy of the judgment in a Criminal Case, it is stated that it was held that this judgment in a criminal matter does not render any help for determining the claim of ownership and that from this judgment Karramat Ali cannot derive any title. The sum and substance of the whole matter is that the deed of assignment is a forged one and therefore later transfers cannot be given any weight in the matter of title to the property.

With regard to the division of survey numbers and sub-division numbers done from time to time, it wsa held that it cannot be straightaway state that the land occupied by the petitioner was a Government land. It observed as follows:

"So far as the facts relating to the survey and settlement and preparation of the revenue records are concerned, the learned Government Pleader also could not contradict the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In fact, those facts have been admitted in the counter filed by the respondents. What is submitted by the learned Government Pleader is after subdivision of the Survey No.129 into 129/1 to 129/10 there was a revision survey and S. Nos.353 to 404 were given in the place of S. Nos.129/1 to 129/10 by deleting the same. Therefore, S. Nos.353 to 404 must be deemed to be the survey numbers allotted for those 10 sub-divided numbers. It is not in dispute that these new survey numbers, namely 353 to 404, do not find a place in the survey and settlement records nor could it be said exactly as to what is the exact area of the new corresponding numbers to S.Nos.129/1 to 129/10. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel Sri Pratap Reddy that the Government itself is not in a position to identify the lands. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that survey No.403 cannot be taken notice of officially. Therefore, treating the land covered by S. No.403 as Government land the petitioners cannot be styled as encroachers calling upon their eviction by issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Act. Further the Khasra pahani refers to S. No.129 and its equivalent number '403'. The possession of about 75 persons is shown. We see sufficient force in this submission of the learned Counsel. It cannot be straight away said that the land occupied by the petitioners is the Government land. We have already noted that several persons were assigned the land in Survey No. 129 during the Sarfekhas period and they were all in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, as many as 75 persons were shown as having been in possession of the land in S. No.129 in the Khasra pahani. Out of those 75 persons Jafar AH Stiareefls at serial No.23. We are giving below the names of some of the persons from the extract as furnished in English translated copy by the respondents:

28. From this finding, it has to be noted that the entries in the khasra pahani are presumed to be correct until they are validly substituted. Admittedly, in the khasra pahani filed by the petitioners, the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were entered showing the extent held by them and the relevant survey numbers. No other document is produced by the Government to say that those entries were subsequently substituted lawfully. Even in the Wasool Baqui i.e., co-relation statement and the sethwar, the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were mentioned as pattedars and survey numbers were also mentioned showing the extent. It is to be noted that Jafar Ali Shareef's successors-in-interest filed the writ petition when the Section 6 and 7 notices were issued under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. But, in the instant case, that stage was not reached, only the Government passed an order directing the Collector to resume the land in case of Mir Hassan Ali Khan and in respect of Ravikal Venkatram Reddy and Khusim Ali, Joint Collector himself passed an Order. No document; is available to show that the proceedings under Land Encroachment Act were initiated and the petitioners were dispossessed. Therefore, the facts in Jafar Ali Shareefs case are quite identical to the facts in the case on hand to the extent ofthe title as can be traced out from 1340 Fasli onwards. It is not the case of the Government that the khasra pahani, Wasool Baqui and sethwar were forged and fabricated, but it is the only contention of the Government that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners by the Sarfekhas authorities was found to be forged and therefore, consequently any transfers made or entries affected in the revenue records was illegal and without authority of law.

Therefore, referring to the said provision, the learned Counsel submits that in the Powthi Bahies details with regards to the nature of the land held and possession ofthe occupant are given and that also indicates the names of the petitioners as pattedars. I need not go into this aspect, inasmuch as the names of the petitioners were found in the Wasool Baqui register, sethwar and also the khasra pahani, which were scrutinised by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, from the facts and events noted above and keeping in view the findings ofthe Division Bench, it has to be held that the petitioners' predecessors-in-titfe were in possession of the land assigned to them and the possession has been noted in the khasra pahani, sethwar and Wasool Baqui apart from entry in the Powthi Bahies.