Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments


                          North: Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,
Revenue survey            East: S.No. 129/52 belonging to the plaintiff.
No. 129/51;               West: S.No. 129/50 at Banjara Hills.
               
Revenue Survey            North: Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,
No. 129/52                South: S.No. 129/127, Banjara Hills.
                          East: S.No. 129/54, and 53 at Banjara Hills.
                          West: S.No. 129/51 belonging to the plaintiff.

The respondent No. 9 claims both the said lands on the ground that his father Abdul Razak and his paternal Uncle, Abdul Basith, purchased them from the then secretary Sarfekhas Mubarak in the year 1339 Fasli and deposited the sale consideration into the Treasury under a challan; thereafter the District Collector, Afrafbalda, Sarfekhas Mubarak, wrote a letter No. 111/113, dated 13,h day 1339 Fasli (Corresponding to 8th Nov., 1929) to the Tahsli, Taluk West, District Atraf Balda, directing him to determine ther land bearing S.No. 129/51, sold to Abdul Basith, and deliver possession of the same to him the Tahsildar directed the concerned Revenue Inspector through his letter dated 20th dai 1339 Fasli to measure the land and demarcate it by boundary stones and deliver possession of the same to Abdul Basith; accordingly the concerned Inspector demarcated the land in the presence of the Village patwari and tow other respectable persons and fixed boundaries as per the plan of 1336 Fasli and Tippan for 1332 Fasli and delivered possession to Abdul Basith under a panchanama together with the touch plan then prepared on 2nd Bahman 1339 Fasli the very same collector wrote another letter 114/116 dated 13th Dai 1339 Fasli directing the Tahsildar, Taluk West, District Atraf Balda, to demarcate S. No. 129/52 and deliver possession of it to Abdul Razak and to effect mutation of it in the name of Abdul Razak; in pursuance of the orders of the Collector, Tahsildar in his letter No. 216/218 dated 20 dai 1339 Fasli directed the Revenue Inspector, Golconda Fort Circle, to demarcate the land; on 2nd Bahman 1339 Fasli the Revenue Inspector demarcated the said land as per the plan of 1336 Fasli and Tippan of 1332 Fasli and delivered possession of that land to Abdul Razak under a panchanama; since then the plaintiff's father Abdul Razak and his paternal uncle, Abdul Basith, were in possession and enjoyment of the said land as owners thereof paying the land Revenue due thereon; there after the name of the plaintiff's father Abdul Razak and the name of the plaintiff's paternal uncle, Abdul Basith, were entered in all the Revenue records as pattedars for S.No. 129/51 and 129/52, situated in Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, the plaintiffs paternal uncle, Abdul Basith orally gifted the land bearing S.No. 129/51, admeasuring 6 Acres 34 guntas in favour of the plaintiff on 25 Meher 1356 Fasli in consideration of natural love and affection for him; the names of the plaintiff and his father were entered in the Town Surve V Register of 1966 as Pattedar, but the situation of the lands is wrongly shown at Road No. 12. The said suit is at the stage of settlement of issues and in the mean time the defendant No. 1, Abdul Qayum and the defendant No. 2, Inayat All, died, but no steps have been taken by the respondent No. 9 herein to substitute the Legal Representatives in place of the said deceased, with the result that the said suit as against the said deceased has abated. The non-effective persecution of the said suit by the respondent No. 9 herein has resulted in one of the said lands bearing S.No. 129/51 being trespassed upon and illegal Sale Deeds coming into existence and permanent structures being raised thereon. There is already L.G.C. No. 46, of 1989., filed before this Honourable court in respect of one of the said lands bearing S.No. 129/51 by the heirs of late Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith S/o. late Abdul Qayum S/o. late Abdul Rub, through the G.P.A. Mehdi Ali S/o. Abdul Rub who is the respondent No. 4 herein. The said suit is at the stage of trial. The plaintiff does not seem to be interested in persecution of the said suit. The applicant is of firm belief that the respondent No. 9 herein is in cleat collusion with all the respondents herein and that is the reason why he has allowed the land in S.No. 129/51 being used for raising permanent structures thereon and now aiming at doing the same thing in respect of the other S.No. 129/52 without pressing for adjunction of his said suit bearing O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 and the sole mention of all the respondents including the respondent No. 9 is to grab the land bearing Section No. 129/52, which is the land purchased by the applicant herein under a Registered Sale Deed, stated herein above, and in respect o which there is already a Government order, stated supra, permitting the vendors of the applicant to alienate the same to the applicant, which is a registered co-operative Housing Society. This Honourable Court has therefore to decide not only the title in respect of the said land but also its geographical locations. It is also submitted respectively that the plaintiff in the said suit, i.e. the respondent No. 9 herein did not comply with any provisions of the said Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 making his claim to be a doubtful claim.

2. As regards the allegations contained in para 2(b) of the said counter, it is submitted that Shaikpet Village was Sarfekhas Village that the marger sarfekhas into Diwani took place in the year 1358 Fasii/ 1949 A.D. the initial Survey of sarfekhas village took place in the year 1330 Fasli as contended by the Respondent No. 8. The Teepan Book was prepared in the year 1332 Fasli/ 1992 A.D. and based on that a plan was prepared in the year 1336 Fasli/ 1926 A.D. The Revision Survey took place in the year 1349 Fasli and not in the year 1346 Fasli as contended by the Respondent No. 8. It is also submitted that there was no existence of Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 in the year 1340 Fasli as the sub-division of main Sy. No. 129 took place in the year 1331 Fasli under a supplementary sethwat under which sub-divisions 129/1 to 129/10. The sub-divisions Nos. 129/11 to 129/87 came into existence in the year 1352 Fasli as can be seen from the enquiry report of the Joint Collector Hyderabad District bearing No. B1/162/82 (S & LR) dated 3-10-1983.
1) It is submitted that Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal was a Sarfekhas Village i.e the private property of H.E.H. Nizam the merger of Sarfekhas with Dewani (Government) this village i.e. the private property of the H.E.H. Nizam vested with the State Government as per the Sarrf ekhas Merger Regulation of 1358F.
2) Most of the lands situated in this Village are either Government lands or Government Porambokes. The Village was initially surveyed during the Sarfekhas Regime in 1326 Fasli and Survey Register (Sethwar) was prepared in 1330 F (1920 A.D.). According to this Sethwar there were totally 353 Sy.Nos. in this village. One of these Sy. No. 129 was of the extent Ac. 3288-02 and was registered as Government land
1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule land?
2. Whether the petition schedule land is covered by Sy.Nos. 129/23 or Sy. No. 129/52 of Shaikpet village?
3. What is the exact survey number of the petition schedule land?
4. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act 12 of 1982?
5. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

Whether the applicant is entitled for damages?
29. Referring to LG.C. No. 15 of 1996 which is filed by the Government as stated earlier who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006 where the Government sought to declare virtually the self-same respondents as land grabbers in respect of Acs. 16.09 gts. (78, 529 sq. yards) in T.S. Nos. l/p, 4/p, 11/p and 12/p, Block H, Ward No. 10 correlates to Sy. No. 403 situated in Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The simple case of the Government is that the entire Shaikpet village was a private property of H.E.H. Nizam and after the merger of Surfekhas with Dewani, the said property was vested with the Government and it has been pointed out that as to how the land in Sy. No. 129 was sub-divided and the supplementary Sethwars were issued in Sy. No. 129/1 corresponding to Sy. No. 403 admeasuring Acs.3079.35 gts. In the Revision Survey in the year 1349 Fasli, old Sy.Nos.129/11 to 129/87 are shown to be in the name of certain persons as per the Wasool Baqui Register. According to them, Sy. No. 129/68 admeasuring an extent of Acs. 11.16 gts. was recorded in the name of one Mouli Ahmed Mirza even though there is no such specific assignment shown to exist and the said land in Sy. No. 129/68 is with the specific boundaries even in the initial survey of 1326 Fasli. Therefore, there is no dispute in regard to their identity. Subsequent to the revision survey in the year 1349 Fasli, there was a town survey conducted during the year 1964-1971 underthe provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, where the boundaries of the land in Sy. No. 129/68 remained unaltered and new Revision Survey Number was given as Sy. No. 282 and it has become final. According to the Government, there is no such land or any survey number in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki in any of the Survey Records or Survey Maps etc., therefore, it is a ghost survey number. The Tippon Book prepared in 1332 Fasli which was sought to be relied on is a manipulated one and there is no basis. Further, the Government is not a party in O.S. No. 29 of 1965 on the file of Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and hence, it is not binding by any of those findings or proceedings including L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989. Therefore, according to the Government the land is that of Government and the respondents have grabbed the same and they are liable for eviction. Repelling all these allegations the main contestant in this LGC viz., Kaushik Society who arrayed as respondent No. 3 therein reiterates the very same plea to the effect that there exists a land in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki borne out by Survey and Settlement Records and which has been testified by the Courts from time to time. Further, they place reliance on the judgment in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 and again in O.S.No. 29 of 1962 as culminated in the judgment of this Court in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 where in both the proceedings it has been held that Sy. No. 129/68 paiki exists. According to them, original survey of Kancha Tattikhana village, Shaikpeet, was conducted in the year 1350 Fasli. Later, a Tippon Book was prepared in the year 1332 Fasli and the map was prepared during the year 1356 Fasli. Similarly, the Wasool Baqui and Sethwar were also prepared in the year 1336 Fasli and the second settlement of the village was conducted in the year 1346 Fasli and the map was prepared during the year 1348 Fasli, Wasool Baqui was prepared in 1349 Fasli and Sethwar was completed in the year 1352 Fasli. The Revision Settlement took place on 16th Thir 1352 Fasli. Whereby several new survey numbers were created contrary to the earlier records and maps, therefore, the Minister, Sarfekhas Mubarak, by his order No. 18 dated 21st Azur, 1353 Fasli cancelled the Revision Settlement conducted in the year 1346 Fasli and the previous record in the year 1356 Fasli has been approved and maintained. Therefore, from the initial settlement records it clearly and amply show that there exists Sy. No. 129/68 paiki at Road No. 12. They further reiterated once again that originally the land belonged to Sarfekhas authorities and assigned to one Dilawar Ali, who mortgaged the same to Ghousuddin and the debt not being redeemed, Ghousuddin has become the owner and who in turn sold the property to Mohd. Moulana under a registered sale deed dated 27-03-1963 and later Mohd. Moulana sold the land to V.R.K. Sastry under an agreement of sale dated 29-12-1963 which has been resulted in filing a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 29 of 1965, and ultimately, culminating the appeal in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972. Meanwhile, an application was filed by Abdul Basith claiming as pattedar of Sy. No. 129/51 seeking correction of Revision Survey Settlement Records saying that Sy.No,129/51 is situated at Road No. 10 whereas it is wrongly shown as Road No. 12 which corresponds to new Sy. No. 328 where there was intervention by Abdul Rub claiming that Sarfekhas authorities have assigned to him the land in Sy. No. 129/52 which is situated at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Atraf Balda, passed orders by judgment No. 3 of 1954 dated 27th Behman 1354 Fasii rejecting the claim of Abdul Rub and holding that Sy. No. 129/52 is located at Road No. 10, whereas Sy. No. 129/68 is located at Road No. 12. According to the Society, the Government has already exempted the land in Sy. No. 129/68 and thus there is reiteration of the extent, Sy. No. 129/68 paiki in the suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1965, appeal in this Court and L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989. Further, it has been pointed out that even in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 nowhere the Government nor the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records filed the report and apart from the Mandal Revenue Officer and other Government officials having appeared themselves as witnesses never claim that the land belongs to the Government, therefore, the claim of the Government is totally baseless and misconceived and even otherwise the respondents have already perfected their title by adverse possession. The respondents 4 to 6 in the said LGC rejected the claim of the applicant and stated that they being not parties to the proceedings, the proceedings in the civil side are not binding. Similarly respondents 7 to 23 who impleaded themselves supported the claim of the Kaushik Society in regard to the extent of Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and that the proceedings in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 and C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 would operate as res judicata. There was no contest from respondents 7 to 23 properly. Respondent No. 24 filed a counter reiterating the claim of Kaushik Society. Thus, on these and other allegations, the Special Court has framed the following issues: