Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, C.V.RAMULU
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Prameela Modi - Respondent
Decided On : 04-26-05
Held : There is no allegation of any of the respondents unauthorizedly, unfairly, greedily or violently snatched the land belonging to the Government. There is no allegation much less any proof that the respondents have taken possession illegally and fully knowing that they were acting illegally while taking possession.
The State miserably failed to establish the fact pleaded by it in the L. G. C. There is no explanation forthcoming about issuance of supplementary sethwar in 1357 fasli duly incorporating the name of smt. Pramila Modi as pattadar of the land for an extent of Acs. 3. 27 guntas in Survey nos. 116/2 and 3. That a map was also directed to be issued by the Superintendent of Survey of Surfekhas administration to effect the entries in the survey records.
The contention that Smt. Pramila modi entered into possession for the first time in 1990 and that too only over an extent of 800 square yards is falsified by the very subsequent proceedings issued by the mandal Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act vide its notice, dated 16-11 -1991. The Joint collector, Hyderabad, vide order, dated 28-08-1993 (Ex. B-25 in LGC No. 10 of 2002), confirmed the title and possession of smt. Pramila Modi over the disputed land.
There is no act of any "land grabbing" and the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be "land grabbers". There is no allegation of forcibly taking possession of any Government land. The respondents did not enter into the land in question with a view to take the possession of the land illegally. Assertion of one s own right, title and interest in the land whether sustainable or not will not amount to any act of land grabbing unless it is established that possession was taken illegally with that view in mind.
The State miserably failed to prove its title over the land in Survey nos. 116/2 and 3; as such, the Special Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the respondents herein are not "land grabbers".
It is not pleaded that supplementary sethwar is a created document. It is also not pleaded that the surfekhas authorities had no authority or jurisdiction to issue such supplementary sethwar. All that is pleaded is that it was issued in a mistaken impression by the surfekhas authorities.
The State cannot be permitted to question the action of the Surfekhas administration after a long lapse of more than 50 years on any ground whatsoever, more particularly, in view of the fact that the authorities which were entitled to go into the said question as to whether the supptementary sethwar was issued under any mistake, found that the same was directed to be issued by the Surfekhas administration duly entering the name of smt. Pramila Modi in order to render justice and in recognition of her possession over the disputed land. It was found that she has been subjected to an unfair treatment by the person, who sold the land to her under the sale deed, dated 1st Farwardi, 1355 Fasli. The Nizam s administration enjoyed unfettered right to grant such recognition and it could have granted patta even in the absence of any sale deed.
( 1 ) THE facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are tell-tale. They are required to be noticed in somewhat detail. Where do we begin? The Us between the mighty State and its cititzens centres around a piece of land admeasuring Acs. 3. 27 guntas situated in khairatabad village, Hyderabad District. The dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State attained its freedom still awaits its resolution. The all powerful State used weapon after weapon from its armoury against the respondents unhindered by adverse quasi- judicial verdicts as well as judicial pronouncements. We shall notice the phase- wise events. PHASE-I:
( 2 ) KHAIRATABAD village was a Surfekhas village i. e. , the private property of H. E. H. The nizam. The initial survey of Khairatabad village was conducted in the year 1324 Fasli. That according to the entries made in the original sethwar (Settlement Register), the entire extent of land in Survey No. 115 is shown as Acs. 18. 01 gunta. Likewise, the total extent of land in Survey No. 116 is shown as Acs. 52. 34 guntas, classified as poramboke land.
( 3 ) SMT. Pramila Modi (Respondent No. 1 in W. P. No. 20537 of 2004 and L. G. C. No. 10 of 2002) purchased a piece of land admeasuring Acs. 4. 25 guntas in Survey nos. 115/2 and 115/3 in Khairatabad village, under the registered sale deed, dated 1st farwardi, 1355 Fasli from one Smt. Rabia begum wife of Nawab Dastagir Nawaj Jung bahadur for a valuable sale consideration of o. S. Rs. 25,000/ -. According to the revenue records of 1348 Fasli (1937 A. D.), smt. Rabia Begum was pattadar of only an extent of Acs. 3. 37 guntas of land forming part of Survey No. 115/2 (Acs. 2. 00), and survey No. 115/3 (Ac. 1. 37 guntas), respectively. The balance area in Survey no. 115 was partly low-lying and known as enugula Kunta and partly Smashan adjacent to Hindu Smashan Ghat in Survey No. 116. The said Pramila Modi was actually put in possession of the land-in Survey No. 116, as no land was available in Survey Nos. 115/2 and 115/3. Having realized the fraud played by her vendor, Pramila Modi approached the surfekhas authorities seeking appropriate relief. The Minister for Surfekhas Mubarak passed the order in File No, 99/45 of 1356 fasli recognizing the possession of Pramila modi over an extent of Acs. 3. 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 116. A supplementary sethwar was issued in letter No. 2615, dated 23rd Meher, 1356 Fasli in Motemadi File no. 99/45 of 1356 Fasli. The entries in the supplementary sethwar reveal that Survey SI. No.
Sy. No.
Extent
Classification
1.
116/1
Acs. 47. 30 gts.
Poramboke
2.
116/2
2. 21
Non-Agriculture land of
smt. Pramila Modi
3.
116/3
1. 06
House of Smt. Pramila Modi
4.
116/4
0. 02
Temple
5.
16/5
1. 15
Fallow (Padath)
that the said supplementary sethwar was issued on the basis of Mohatmim bandobust File No. 352, dated 1st Khurdad, 1357 Fasli in File No. 99/45 of 1356 Fasli.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER Pramila Modi herself disposed of part of the land i. e. , an extent of 7,600 square yards in favour of the Meer basheeruddin Ahmed Khan under document no. 287/1357 Fasli, dated 2nd Amardad, 1357 Fasli; and an extent of 3588 square yards in favour of Dr. Roop Karan under document No. 17/1357 Fasli, dated 1st khurdad 1357 Fasli. The said two persons subsequently sold the land purchased by them to various individuals who in turn sold in favour of Respondents 2 to 8 in W. P. No. 20537 of 2004. However, the supplementary sethwar issued under the orders of the competent authority were not implemented in the revenue records. PHASE-II
( 5 ) AS the matter stood thus, Pramila Modi preferred an application before the Collector, hyderabad, on 10-12-1963, with a request to demarcate and fix the boundaries of the land purchased by her from Smt. Rabia Begum. The provocation for filing such an application was that her neighbours allegedly tried to encroach upon the land since there were no boundary stones and the same was likely to result in breach of peace. That a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
