IMPORTANT POINT
Summary eviction proceedings cannot proceed when there is a bona fide dispute regarding property title; such disputes must be resolved in a competent Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

Heard Sri B.Narsimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri E.Madam Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14347 of 2002, dated 22.07.2011.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed in the impugned order dated 22.07.2011.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1 Bungalow No.176 in land admeasuring Acs.2.6224 bounded by a compound wall situated at Bowenpally, Secunderabad originally belonged to one Mirza Parvarish Ali who sold the said land in favour of B.D.Chenoy through registered sale deed dated 18.08.1905. After the death of B.D.Chenoy, his wife Smt. Avabai Chenoy also died and the petitioners who are the children of B.D.Chenoy inherited the said property and the petitioners are in exclusive possession of the subject property and the Government never raised any objection in respect of the subject property and the petitioners have filed declaration before Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in the year 1976. Later on the Defense Estate Officer and Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling), Secunderabad Cantonment conducted enquiry and passed order determining that the petitioners are holding excess lands. Against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Director, Defense Estate (Lands) Southern Cantonment under Section 33 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’ for brevity) and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.5187 of 1982 and the said writ petition along with other batch cases were allowed and remitted back to the appellate authority.

4.2 In the meanwhile, Government acquired a part of the land of the petitioners, they paid compensation to the petitioners accepting and admitting their title to the property. The Government paid compensation only for the building and not for the land. At that stage, the petitioners along with other claimants sought reference under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (Hyderabad Act IX of 1309 Fasli) (‘Act’ for brevity) and the said reference came to be numbered as O.P. Nos.19, 39, 43, 45, 63, 64 and 65 of 1952. Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad allowed the said O.Ps by the common judgment dated 01.11.1961 holding that the acquired properties do not belong to the Cantonment but belonged to the claimants and they were entitled to compensation for acquisition of the lands and the said judgment has become final.

4.3 The petitioners further averred that respondent No.3 issued a notice vide proceedings No.21/188/EV.SY.NO.528/B.No.176 dated 17.07.1997 exercising the powers conferred under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘Act, 1971’ for brevity) alleging that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the premises and directed them to vacate the same. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners filed C.M.A. No.172 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 and the said appeal was allowed by its judgment dated 31.01.2002 and respondent No.3 is directed to enquire into the matter in detail. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioners filed all necessary documents before respondent No.3 stating that the subject property is private property neither the Government nor the Cantonment is having any right over the same and the title was already decided by the competent Civil Court in O.P.No.19 of 1952 and batch. The petitioners further averred that respondent No.3 without properly considering their contentions and documentary evidence produced by them passed the impugned order vide proceedings No.21/188/EV/SY. No.528/B.No.176, dated 30.05.2002 stating that the subject land com