Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND C.V. RAMULU, JJ.
Vallabhdas Pallod (died) and others – Appellant
v.
Nagar Panchayat (Municipal Council), Zaheerabad and others –Respondent
W A No.674 of 2004 and Batch
Decided on: Thirteenth Day of April, 2005
A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Land Issue – Possession of – Writ petitioners filed declarations under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and after due verification, the Land Reforms Tribunal, passed orders including the said lands into holding of the writ petitioners viz., Brijgopal, Rajgopal and Purushottam and their mother – Held, The order passed by the Joint Collector conveniently does not refer to the factum of continuous possession of the writ petitioners and their predecessors in title over the lands in question - The order does not take into consideration the affidavits filed on oath by the Zaheerabad Municipality as well as the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration in the Special Court conceding the ownership of the writ petitioners and their being in continuous uninterrupted possession over the lands in question. It does not refer to the earlier statement made by the Municipality conceding the writ petitioners to be the owners of the lands in question - Before parting with the case, we may hasten to clarify that the observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the questions of title over the lands in question. Intricate questions of title to the immovable properties can only be decided in a properly constituted proceeding before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. The summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are totally ill suited for the purpose of resolution of title disputes. Ordinarily, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake to resolve the disputed questions as to the title of any immovable property. Public law remedies are not available for resolution of such disputes - Municipality to avail such remedies as may be available to it in law, in case it still chooses to dispute the very title of the writ petitioners in respect of the lands in question, in which event, the matter shall be decided on its own merits – Suffice it to hold that the Municipality on its own cannot be permitted to interfere or meddle with the possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioners over the lands in question in whatsoever manner - Writ petitioners are allowed.
2. The dispute between the writ petitioners and Zaheerabad Municipality centres around the entries made in the Record of Rights with regard to a piece of land situated in Zaheerabad Town. The petitioners assert their right, title and interest and claim to be the owners of the said land.
3. One Goverdhanlal Pallod through whom the writ petitioners claim the title, purchased an extent of Acs.14-34 guntas of land in Survey No. 146 situated at Zaheerabad Town under the registered sale deed, dated 4th Ardibehist 1352 Fasli from one Mahmood Khan and took vacant possession of the said land. He also purchased an extent of Acs.3-12 guntas of land in Survey No.145 in the same town under the registered sale deed, dated 20th Tir 1352 Fasli from one Abdul Hafeez Khan.
4. Several acts and instances revealing the possession and enjoyment of the land by the writ petitioners are stated in vivid detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions about which there is no dispute raised by the Zaheerabad Municipality. That an Oil Mill and a building was constructed in the land in Survey No.l46 as early as in the year 1354 Fasli and the remaining land was being used for agricultural purpose.
5. The Zaheerabad Municipality itself came into existence in the year 1950. Part of Survey Nos.145 and 146 was assigned Municipal No.3-3-97. Minor part of Survey No.145 and major part of Survey No.146 were assigned Municipal No.3-3-98. The remaining part of the land in Survey No.145 was given Municipal No.3-3-99. The entire land located in Survey Nos.145 and 146 is known as Subhash Gunj, Zaheerabad Town.
6. The said Goverdhanlal Pallod sold an extent of Acs.7-05 guntas of land bearing Municipal No.3-3-97 located in Survey No.146 and an extent of Acs.3-12 guntas of land located in Survey No.145 to one Malani Commercial Company, Secunderabad, under the registered sale deed, dated 3.6.1960. The name of the purchaser was entered in the municipal records. That for whatever reason, the said Malani Commercial Company, Secunderabad, resold the land under the registered sale deed, dated 29.3.1973, in favour of the wife of Goverdhanlal Pallod and her three sons, Brijgopal, Rajgopal and Purushottam. The writ petitioners applied for sanction and mutation of the lands and the Zaheerabad Municipality having considered the request of the writ petitioners, effected the mutation and accordingly incorporated the names of the writ petitioners in the municipal records in the place of Malani Commercial Company, Secunderabad.
7. Thereafter the writ petitioners filed declarations under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "Land Reforms Act 1973") and after due verification, the Land Reforms Tribunal, passed orders including the said lands into holding of the writ petitioners viz., Brijgopal, Rajgopal and Purushottam and their mother.
8. That a cinema theatre was also constructed after obtaining necessary permission from the Collector, Medak District, and the Municipality assigned a new number for the theatre and sanctioned mutation in the name of Brijgopal and his name was accordingly entered in the Property Register maintained by the Municipality.
9. That an extent of Acs.3-12 guntas of land in Survey No.145 was divided into various house plots for which purposes the Municipality sanctioned the layout submitted by the writ petitioners. The purchasers having purchased various house plots constructed buildings, shopping complex and the residential houses etc.
10. The case of the Zaheerabad Municipality is that the predecessor in title of the writ petitioners did not derive any title whatsoever under the so-called registered sale deeds, since the persons from whom the property was purchased themselv
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
