IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed questions of fact relating to title and possession should be decided by the competent civil court, and the power of judicial review is exercisable only on specific grounds.

JUDGMENT :

(C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.)

Heard Mr. Parsa Ananta Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26405 of 2012, dated 17.08.2016.

3. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

4. Learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.26405 of 2012 directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring 988.49 square metres, 983.70 square metres, 1025.98 square metres covered by Survey No.563/1 situated at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, the subject land). It was further directed that if the respondents intended the said land to be used as a water body for the benefit of local people to perform Bathukamma festival, they shall acquire the same by paying compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (briefly, ‘the Land Acquisition Act’ hereinafter).

5. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are stated as under:

5.1. Petitioners had filed the writ petition alleging that that one Syed Aziz had acquired an extent of Acs.299.11 guntas at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, under registered sale deed bearing document No.49/1946 from late Pingili Venkata Rami Reddy and others. The said Syed Aziz died in 1960 leaving behind his wife – Smt. Fatima Begum, five sons and three daughters. It was the further claim of the petitioners that their mother along with other legal heirs of Syed Aziz filed a declaration under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (briefly, ‘the ULC Act’ hereinafter). The said declaration was computed and the draft statement was issued under Section 8(4) of the said Act on 26.05.1980 followed by orders under Section 9 of the Act on 12.06.2003 determining the family members of Syed Aziz holding land in excess of permissible limit admeasuring 86,422 square metres and further a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 05.02.2004. It was the further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, their predecessors-in-title filed a writ petition, vide W.P.No.3499 of 2004, and this court had granted status quo on the subject land of the writ petition.

5.2. The State Government had adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (briefly, ‘the Repeal Act’ hereinafter) on 27.03.2008 and by virtue of the Repeal Act, all the cases in which possession was not taken and where proceedings did not culminate in action under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act had abated. Therefore, petitioners claim that they are absolute owners of the subject land in Survey No.563/1. Subsequently, the said W.P.No.3499 of 2004 was dismissed as infructuous on 09.07.2012. It was the further case of the petitioners that they made an application under G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456 dated 29.07.2022 seeking regularisation of the subject land in File No.H2/456/08 and 17/06 dated 24.03.2011. They had also filed an application seeking regularisation of the said land under G.O.Ms.No.902 dated 31.12.2007 and by proceedings dated 29.06.2011 the Commissioner regularized the land to an extent of 1025.98 square metres in Survey No.563/1 in favour of petitioner No.3 by collecting an amount of Rs.45,70,072.00. Petitioners No.1 and 2 also applied for regularisation of their respective extents under the said Government Order, pursuant to which they were issued intimation letter dated 04.04.2010 asking them to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,53,440.00. The contention of the petitioners was that since the Government issued GO referr