SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(AP) 86

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL REDDY
V.Lingamma - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-04

Headnote:

A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act –Section 158 –ULC Act –Sections 8 (1), 6, 11, 9 –Issue on Property –Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that when Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records by order directed that no Revenue authority below the rank of Commissioner , Survey, settlements and Land Records shall issue any order and the order already been passed in respect of the property subject matter of civil dispute shall be implemented until the civil Court is decided and directed to await disposal of the suit, initiation of proceedings by the Joint Collector under the Act is arbitrary and illegal – It is also urged by the learned Senior Counsel that in the enquiry if it is found that the property is Escheat or Bona Vacantia, the authorities have to initiate proceedings for recovery of possession under Section 8, admittedly when the petitioners are in possession of the same –But without following the said procedure straightway passing an order and issuing notification of the Act is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice –Held, From the conspectus of discussion made and for the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, declaring the property In question as escheat or boan vacantia and Its publication solely basing upon the report suffers from Incurable legal infirmities and It is contrary to the provisions of the Act, cannot be sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside –However it is always open for the authorities to conduct an enquiry as contemplated after issuing notice to the parties, who are likely to be affected by such declaration and only after such enquiry they can proceed further in the matter – The very nature of enquiry does contemplate Issuance of notice to the parties who are likely to be affected by such declaration –In view of the same, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct an enquiry before passing the Impugned order – Petition allowed

A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE point that falls for adjudication in both the writ petitions is common and they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS claim that one Shaheen Aziz Ahmed was allotted a plot admeasuring Ac. 2. 30 gts. in Plot No. 10 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality and from whom the petitioners father Mr. V. Malla Reddy purchased the said property on 12-3-1358 Fasli corresponding to the year 1948 and since from the date pf purchase he is in continuous possession. When several bogus claims were made with regard to allotments by the erstwhile Nizam Government in Jubilee Hills area, the 1st respondent instituted an enquiry into such claims of allotment and after elaborate enquiry the 1st respondent through his Memo No. 3933/02/64-17 dated 6-12-1967 held that 41 individuals who claim for assignment/allotment were held to be legal and valid, wherein the petitioners father s vendor is at SI. No. 15 over an extent of Ac. 2. 30 gts, in the annexure annexed to the said proceedings. It is stated that during the year 1979-80 the 1st and 2nd respondents published the Town Survey Records of Hyderabad City, wherein also the ownership and possession of V. Malla Reddy was recorded which was co-related to T. S. No. 4/2, Ward No. 10, Banjara Hills. The same was reflected in the Pahanies 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. On petitioners father making application to the Joint Collector (3rd respondent) who conducted Panchanama on 29-6-1984 and issued Supplementary Sethwar on 1-5-1984 in his name. On Issuance of Supplementary Sethwar, one All Asgar Seizer approached the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records by filing appeal under Section 158 of A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli claiming that he purchased the property from the daughter of the original allotteesaheen Aziz Ahmed and the entries in the name of V. Malla Reddy and petitioners 1 to 8 may be deleted. The Commissioner by order in reference No. P5/2183/84 dated 15-11 -1985 directed the All Asgar Seizer to approach the civil Court and also observed that no order by any Revenue authority of and below the rank of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records shall be issued in respect of the property Plot No. 10, in Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Taluk, Hyderabad District which has become the subject matter of a civil dispute. No order of the Revenue authority passed in respect of the same disputed civil matter shall be implemented pending disposal of the case by the civil Court. The revenue authorities shall await the disposal of the suit by the civil Court and carry out the orders of the civil Court. Meanwhile O. S. No. 2467 of 1984 was filed by Viswa Saptagiri Housing Co-operative Housing Corporation on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against V. Malla Reddy and 8th petitioner and also against All Asgar Seizer claiming that they have purchased the property from him. The said suit was dismissed on 24-12 1987. Likewise, two more suits O. S. Nos. 33 of 1988 and 1536 of 1996 filed by the said society were also dismissed by a common judgment dated 7-2-2001 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in which it is categorically recorded the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. Against which the plaintiff carried the matter in appeals before this Court and the same are pending. Meanwhile, pursuant to final decree granted in O. S. No. 538 of 1986 filed for partition by the 8th petitioner partition was taken place between the petitioners. In adverting to Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling) Regulation Act, 1976 all the family members of V. Malla Reddy including the petitioners herein filed declarations. The Special Officer and Competent Authority issued proceedings dated 29-11 -1985 declared that 5041 sq. mts. was in excess of ceiling limit. By issuing draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the ULC Act the petitioners filed their objections. When t

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top