IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, are not empowered to decide complicated questions of title and possession, and that such disputes fall within the domain of the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.)

Heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A. Nos.1052, 1055 and 1056 of 2010.

None for the remaining respondents.

2. The W.A. Nos.1052, 1053, 1054, 1055 and 1056 of 2010 have been filed against the common order dated 22.09.2009 passed in W.P. Nos.9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 and 20345 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein is the Estate Officer & A.P.D., Airports Authority of India. The respondents in these appeals are the writ petitioners in the said writ petitions.

3. Since the common issues are involved in these intra court appeals between the parties they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A. No.1055 of 2010 are being referred to as a lead matter.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the impugned common order dated 22.09.2009.

Facts of the case:

6. As in all the writ petitions, identical orders were questioned, the learned Single Judge had referred to the facts as narrated in W.P.No.14417 of 2001.

7. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners/respondents herein have questioned the orders issued under Section 5-A (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondent/appellant herein. Through the aforesaid orders, the respondent/appellant herein has ordered for removal of flats in a residential complex, namely ‘Archana Apartments’.

8. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent herein that one Smt. C.Kamsamma, claiming to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 600 square yards in the premises bearing No.1-11-252/1/E in Survey No.19 of Begumpet, has sold her undivided share to the petitioner/respondent herein by registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994, bearing document No.3071/94. After purchase of the said plot, the petitioner/respondent herein has entered into an agreement for construction of flat bearing No.204 and the same was constructed, and ever since, the petitioner/respondent herein is in its possession and enjoyment.

9. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner/respondent herein that one Sri Mamilla Krishna Reddy, who was the father of Smt.C.Kamsamma, was the original owner and possessor of the land as he has purchased the same from its earlier owner one Sri Hzaratulla by a registered sale deed bearing document No.6041, dated 5th Aban, 1358 Fasli, and the said property is given to Smt.C.Kamsamma by way of pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage. Afterwards, when there was a claim by her sisters also for the property, the said Kamsamma had filed a suit for declaration of title, in O.S.No.252 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.1991. Thereafter, she entered into development agreement with M/s.Naveen Constructions on 4th January 1993, to develop the said property and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to construct an apartment complex, vide permission bearing No.415/12, dated 12th February 1993. The petitioner/ respondent herein has availed housing loan from Canara Bank and having paid the said amount to the vendor of the land, she got constructed the flat in question and is in possession of the same by letting out to a tenant.

10. At this stage, respondent/appellant herein has issued the notice dated 11th January 2001, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A (1) of the Act, alleging that the Airports Authority has got surveyed the land in Survey No.15 and it was found that the building in question is constructed by encroaching upon its land to an extent of 570 Square yards, as such, directed the petitioner/respondent herein to remove these flats. Initially, the pe