Point of Law: Conveyance deed cancellation by Government - Once a registered deed is executed in favour of a party, the original owner is divested of the title to the property. The executant cannot take a ‘U’ turn and subsequently cancel the same unilaterally

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Proceedings No. R1/3023/09, dated 26.03.2012 of the respondent No. 1 in canceling the Conveyance Deed, dated 24.09.2009 executed by the then District Collector, Hyderabad District, vide document No. 3079 of 2009 in respect of the land to an extent of 166 square yards in Sy. No. 281, correlated to T.S. No. 4, Ward No. 21, Block-N, premises No. 13-6-437/2/F, situated at Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that basing on the long standing occupation of the subject land, which is admittedly, Government land, the petitioner made an application on 27.06.2008 seeking transfer of rights of the subject land in his favour, as per G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, the District Level Regularization Committee, in its meeting held on 25.05.2009, had recommended for transfer of rights of the subject land in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs.1,64,548/-, being the market value of the land. On payment of the said amount vide challan Nos. 146285 and 137993, dated 27.08.2009 and 31.07.2009, the respondent No. 1 issued the proceedings on 17.09.2009 and also executed a Conveyance Deed bearing document No. 3079 of 2009, dated 24.09.2009 transferring the ownership rights of the subject land in favour of the petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner, with an intent to construct a new building, demolished the existing structures and obtained building permission from the GHMC, vide permit No. 30/59, dated 09.12.2009. However, basing on a complaint alleging that the subject land falls in T.S. No. 4, Block-N, Ward No. 21, correlated to Sy. No. 281, which is classified as G-Well, the respondent No. 1 called for a report from the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, and on the basis of the same, vide impugned proceedings, dated 26.03.2012, ordered to cancel the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.09.2009.

3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 12.04.2012, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings in W.P.M.P. No. 13007 of 2012.

4. Pending the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 9023 of 2014 came to be filed by Smt. G. Sulochana seeking to implead her as party-respondent to the writ petition. The said application was ordered on 25.03.2021.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3. Perused the material available on record.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, or conducting any enquiry, the impugned proceedings have been passed behind the back of the petitioner unilaterally and therefore, the entire proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, in the land grabbing case filed by the official respondents, being L.G.C. No. 10 of 2010, their case was that the land to an extent of 1875 sq. meters in T.S. No. 4, Block-N, Ward No. 21 is classified as Sarkari/ Kharijkhata and they also admitted that the respondents therein have raised constructions and therefore, sought for their eviction. From the statement made therein by the respondents themselves, it is clear that there is no ‘Well’ existing over the subject land. Therefore, the very cancellation of Conveyance Deed by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that as per Town Survey Land Register, the subject land is shown as G-Well, is incorrect and without any basis.

7. Adverting to the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has argued that as per the entries in Town Survey Land Register, the subject land has been recorded as G-Well (Water), which is objectionable as per Clause No. 10(iii) of G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. The learned Government Pleader su