The court ruled that ownership claims over land must be substantiated with documentary evidence, and material questions of fact should be resolved in civil suits rather than writ petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Ms. Divya Adepu, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana, appearing for the appellants, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.A.No.1639 of 2017, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Bharadwaj Associates for the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017. Perused the record.

2. The appeals are preferred by the appellants/respondents aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 07.03.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13810 and 16754 of 2008. In the said order, the appellants were directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents in each writ petition; declared the action of writ appellant No.1 in constructing the compound wall covering the land of the respondents in Sy.No.318/1, situated in Gaddiannaram Village, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad, as illegal, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the orders passed by the P.A. to Collector, Hyderabad District in No.B2/392/78, dt.14.08.1980 as confirmed in Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Revision Petition Case No.R.O.R./1290/80 dt.14.09.1981 and the judgment of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dt.14.10.1998 in O.S.No.3903 of 1986 and confirmed in judgment dt.12.09.2000 in A.S.No.176 of 1999 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently directed writ appellant No.1 to demolish the compound wall constructed by appellant No.1 over and above the land of Ac.3.00 gts. covered by the Monument Mons, Raymonds Obelisk (for short ‘the subject land’) and further directed the appellants not to encroach upon the land of the respondents in Sy.No.318/1, Gaddiannaram Village, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3. The respondents filed the writ petitions with the following prayers:

“to direct the Commissioner Survey and Land Records (2^nd respondent) to survey the land of the State Archaeological Museums Department (1^st respondent) and fix the boundaries as per the orders of the PA to the Collector, Hyderabad District in his order dt.14.08.1980 in B2/392/78 as confirmed by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records in his order dt.14.09.1981 in Revision Petition No.ROR/1290/80 and further to direct the 1st respondent herein to demolish the compound wall constructed in deviation from the orders of the aforesaid authorities”.

Brief facts

4. The respondents in both the writ petitions are claiming to be owners of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 gts. in Sy.No.318/1 Gaddi Annaram Village which was originally owned by H.E.H The Nizam the VII (for short ‘the Nizam’) and was purchased by Naseem Fatima and Saleema Fatima on 03.10.1964 and 02.09.1963 respectively. The respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 purchased Ac.1.00 cts from Naseem Fatima on 20.08.1966, the said land was divided into six plots and five plots were sold. Similarly, the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017 are claiming different extent of land through their vendor Saleema Fatima.

5. There is a history of proceedings before the revenue authorities for rectification of entries to reflect the name of the H.E.H. Nizam as the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.318/1 by deleting the term ‘Sarkari’. The said proceedings are orders of the PA to the Collector, Hyderabad District in his order dt.14.08.1980 in B2/392/78 as confirmed by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records in his order dt.14.09.1981 in Revision Petition No.ROR/1290/80. The said proceedings before the revenue authorities ended in favour of the respondents in both the writ appeals. Consequently, the name of the H.E.H. Nizam is reflected as owner of the land in Sy.No.318/1.

6. Apart from the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 have filed O.S.No.3903 of 1986 seeking perpetual injunc