JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 18.04.2017 passed in W.P. No. 25934 of 2010.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred before this Court by the respondents/writ petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar in demolishing the compound wall and two rooms on the subject property. The petitioners stated that their father was the titleholder of the property to an extent of 3,764 square yards and a house bearing No. 1-6-261/A/4 was constructed. Before the learned Single Judge, it was stated on an affidavit that proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) and a statement was filed under Section 6 of the Act, declaration was submitted and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer passed an order declaring the land as non-surplus land and holding that the petitioners are entitled to hold it. The State never objected to the order passed under the Act. Later on, an application was submitted for grant of permission for construction of a residential complex. It was sanctioned vide permit dated 01.01.2010. Subsequently, a revised building plan proposal was also submitted by the respondents/writ petitioners, which was also approved on 14.09.2010. The respondents/writ petitioners alleged that the Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, visited the subject premises and told the respondents/writ petitioners to stop the construction and directed them to submit the documents. All the documents were submitted to the Tahsildar. However, without issuing any notice, the Tahsildar, on 13.10.2010, came to the spot and demolished part of the compound wall and two rooms attached thereto. No order was passed in writing by the Tahsildar and the respondents/writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, came up before this Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:

“The point for consideration

From the above contentions, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the respondents have any authority to interfere with the said land claimed by the petitioners?”

The consideration by the Court:

The petitioners have relied upon the sale deed dated 09.12.1966, obtained by them, the GHMC Permit No. 6/76, dated 01.10.2010, the revised building plan, dated 14.9.2010, apart from the proceedings, dated 28.4.1993, of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, in support of their plea that the said land is a private land.

The order, dated 28.4.1993, of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling was passed after considering the enquiry report, dated 28.11.1992, of the Enquiry Officer under the Act stating that the said land is a private land. Once the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling declared the land to be private land and non-surplus land, merely on the basis of the entry in the Town Survey Land Record or revenue record classifying the said land as “G” the respondents cannot claim that it is Government land.

The Supreme Court of India has held that entries in the revenue records are not proof of title and such entries cannot be relied upon for establishing the title. [State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited, (2010) 5 SCC 382]

The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed as under:

“The sole basis of the Appellant to claim the land was on the strength of entries made in survey records showing that the schedule property was surveyed as T.S. No. 4/2, Ward No. 66 of Bakaram village having an area of 19214 sq. meters showing it as a gap area i.e. un-surveyed area as per the old survey records and as such it could only be declared to be Government land as has been recorded in Column No. 20 of the T.S.L.R. Apart from the said revenue record and issuance of gazette notification as me