The petitioners failed to prove ownership or occupancy rights over the land, and the eviction proceedings were deemed valid, necessitating resolution at the Endowment Tribunal.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. R.A. Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowment Department appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.5 is a non-existing.

2. The present writ petition is filed to declare the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.B2/8002/2013, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to declare the action of respondent No.4 in filing eviction petition before the Endowment Tribunal during pendency of civil suit vide O.S. No.352 of 2013 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, between the petitioners and respondent No.4, as null and void.

3.  CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) The petitioners herein are the owners and possessors of their respective houses i.e., H. Nos.17-1-382/H/10, 17-1-382/H/13, 17-1- 382/H/1, 17-1-382/H/2, 17-1-382/H/6, 17-1-382/H/5, 17-1-382/H/12, 17-1-382/H/14, 17-1-382/H/1, 17-1-382/H/13, 17-1-382/H/15 and 17-1- 382/H/14, situated in Survey No.110 of Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District. Originally, they had purchased open plots from one Dr. Niranjan Prasad Sukla represented by his GPA Holder, Mr. L.Shashank Reddy in the year 1996 and thereafter they had constructed houses and have been staying in the said houses by paying property taxes to the GHMC. They have been paying electricity and water consumption charges also to the authorities concerned.

ii) Originally, the land in the aforesaid survey number was classified as Mafi Inam in the name of Mr. Bhagavan Das, who sold the said property to one Mr. Jagannath Prasad before the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition on Inams Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act, 1955’). The said Jagannath Prasad is the father of Dr. Niranjan Prasad Sukla, the Vendors of the petitioners herein.

iii) The said Jagannath Prasad was in continuous and uninterrupted peaceful possession over the land to an extent of Acs.2.35 guntas in Survey No.110. The name of Dr. Niranjan Prasad Sukla appears in the column of pattadar and possessor in pahani patrikas from the year 1954-55 to 1980-81. After the death of Jagannath Prasad, his son, Dr. Niranjan Prasad Sukla succeeded to the said property and continued to remain in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1990, the Revenue Divisional Officer had also issued Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the Vendors of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.1.20 guntas, vide its proceedings No.E/6326/1990, dated 29.02.1992.

iv) Thereafter, the Vendor of the petitioners obtained Layout in respect of the said land and sold the plots to the petitioners herein in the year 1996. The petitioners had constructed houses on their respective plots and have been in effective possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes.

v) While so, on 07.02.2009, respondent No.4 had taken up an appeal vide  No.B2/907/1998 filed by respondent No.5 as if it was filed by respondent No.4. In fact, there was no appeal filed by respondent No.4 challenging the ORC issued in favour of the Vendor of the petitioners in the year 1992. Then, the Joint Collector without issuing notices and without affording an opportunity remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for enquiry and disposal.

vi) Respondent No.3 kept the matter pending for long time i.e., from 1998 to 2013 without notices to the affected parties and finally set aside the ORC dated 14.06.2013 issued in favour of the Vendor of the petitioners. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 and its Chairman, the Tahsildar and VRO came to the petitioners’ houses along with JCB and tried to dispossess the petitioners forcibly. Under the threat of dispossession, they made to sign on blank papers. However, the petitioners preferred statutory appeal No.B2/8002/2013 before respondent No.2. They have also approached th