Possession claims based on agreements are insufficient against government declarations of land as public property; title disputes must be resolved in civil court.

ORDER :

C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in interfering with his possession and digging the land admeasuring Ac.7-00 gts in Sy.No.563/1 situated at Bagh Amberpet Village, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are stated as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that he along with his family members purchased land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts in Sy.No.563/1 situated at Bagh Amberpet Village, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, under an agreement of sale dated 16.01.1986 from Late Syed Azam S/o. Late Syed Aziz. It is further case of the petitioner that Late Syed Aziz purchased vast land from Late Pingali Venkatram Reddy under sale deed bearing document No.49/1356 Fasli (1946) and after the death of Syed Aziz, his legal heirs i.e, Syed Azam and others managed the properties. It is stated that the subject land is dry land and meant for construction of residential houses and the subject land was never classified as water body. The petitioner herein placed reliance on the title of his alleged vendor and their predecessors-in-interest and claims to be in possession of the subject property. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are interfering with his possession and digging his land without following due process of law.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments of the writ affidavit and title of the petitioner and submitted that except relying on the entries made in the revenue records in the name of his alleged vendor and predecessors-in- interest, the petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his case. It is stated that the chequered history over the subject lands has been elaborately dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court (to which I was a Member) in District Collector, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District and others, vs. Syed Jahangir, and others, 2023 (5) ALT 396 (DB) and the respondents relied upon the findings recorded therein which attained finality. It is further stated that as the subject land is covered with debris, to protect the inhabitants from pollution, the respondents have executed the work of removal of debris and cleaned the shrubs and bushes in the notified water body. It is also stated that the petitioner’s alleged vendor has failed to establish his title before the various forums. Therefore, the petitioner is not having any locus to file the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4. Considered the submissions of Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for the respondent No.7 and perused the record.

5. Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placing much reliance on the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the alleged vendor of the petitioner has strenuously contended that in view of the entries made in favour of the vendor (who executed agreement of sale), a presumption has to be drawn that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. It is further submitted that an application seeking to review the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.484 of 2017 has been filed and the same is pending. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.697 of 2023 by the Division Bench of this Court (reported in M/s.Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. The Telangana State Indu