A P HOUSING BOARD Vs. MOHAMMAD SADATULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are filed against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on March 29, 2000 in various writ petitions. Those writ petitions were filed by the petitioners (Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, land-owners and contesting respondents) aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Special Court established under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Land Grabbing Case (L.G.C.) No. 137 of 1989 on September 4, 1995.

(2.) THE litigation has a chequered history and to understand the controversy raised by the parties in the present group of appeals, it is necessary to bear in mind the facts and circumstances under which this Court is called upon to resolve the controversy. One Farhatulla, father of original petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner No. 4 before the Special Court, was the owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 45-48, admeasuring 45 acres, of Yousufguda village in the limits of Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board wanted the land for a public purpose i.e., for the construction of dwelling units for its employees ('Vengal Rao Nagar Housing Board Colony'). A requisition was, therefore, made for acquisition of land under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board Act') for 'Housing Scheme'. A notification was issued on August 5, 1965 and was published in Government Gazette on August 26, 1965. Special Deputy Collector was authorized by the Government by an order dated October 24, 1967 to exercise power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on March 1, 1968. Notices were also given to the persons interested in the land and for hearing of objections. An inquiry under Section 5A was conducted and final notification under Section 6 was issued on December 30, 1968. In the final notification, it was stated that the land admeasuring 45 acres of Survey Nos. 45 to 48 would be required for public purpose. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued and an Award No. 5 was passed on December 31, 1971 by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Housing Board. THE said Award was not challenged by any party and it had become final and binding. It is also clear from the record that though the acquisition was in respect of 45 acres of land and the Award was also passed for 45 acres, the Housing Board could take possession of only 43 acres land. It could not acquire possession of two acres of land since it was occupied by hut dwellers. In the Award itself, a direction was given that an amount of Rs. 50,094/- which was the compensation towards two acres of land which could not be taken possession of because of existence of huts, should be deposited in the treasury and such amount should be paid to the land-owners only after they evict the hut dwellers and deliver possession of the said land to the Housing Board. THE Land Grabbing Case relates to the said two acres of land which will hereafter be referred to as the 'petition schedule land'. THE land-owners had not received compensation of Rs. 50,094/- in respect of two acres of land. THEy, therefore, asserted that they continued to remain owners of the land and submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) to sanction layout for sub-division of two acres of land of Survey No. 45. THE MCH, however, asked the land-owners to furnish 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the Housing Board as also Clearance Certificate (CC) from the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Since NOC was not granted by the Housing Board nor layout sanctioned by MCH, the land-owners filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 4194 of 1988 challenging the requirement of NOC by the Housing Board and directing MCH to sanction layout without insisting for NOC from the Housing Board and declaring that land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land had lapsed. THE High Court allowed the petition and granted the relief by judgment and order dated December 8, 1988. It was held by the High Court that the possession could not be taken by the Housing Board of two acres of land nor the amount was paid to the owners and the proceedings lapsed. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court in the Writ Petition, the petitioners-land-owners filed Land Grabbing Case (L.G.C.) No. 137 of 1989 in the Special Court under the Act and prayed for eviction of unauthorized encroachers in two acres of land owned by late Farhatulla, father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner No. 4. A counter was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, inter alia, contending that they and their forefathers had been in possession of the land said to have been encroached by them and they were cultivating it since time immemorial. THEy and their predecessors were in actual occupation of land and their possession was never objected by the petitioners. THE Land Acquisition Officer who passed the Award also held that huts were found in existence on the 'petition schedule land' since about forty-five years. Thus, the respondents had also perfected their title by adverse possession. It was further stated that they had filed Original Suit No. 1550 of 1985 in the Court of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and had obtained interim injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with their possession over the 'petition schedule land'. THE respondents applied for layout from MCH and also constructed houses on the said land. It was stated that when MCH caused obstruction against such construction, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 29886 of 1986 and obtained interim relief. Farhatulla admitted in Criminal Case No. 259 of 1974 on the file of the IVth Metropolitan Magistrate that he had no title deeds in respect of the 'petition schedule land' and did not personally occupy it at any time except half an acre. It was further stated that petitioner No. 1 also made similar statement in Original Petition No. 258 of 1979 on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It was asserted that most of the residents in the 'petition schedule land' were paying land revenue and they should be deemed to be pattadars and in possession of the said land, notwithstanding the wrong entries made in the Revenue Records. As the petitioners had no title over the 'petition schedule land' and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and their predecessors in title had acquired title by adverse possession over the land, they could not be treated as 'land grabbers'.

(3.) AN additional counter was also field by the Housing Board wherein it was contended that the land around which the Housing Board fenced, formed part of 43 acres of land, the possession of which was delivered to the Board under Award No. 5 of December 31, 1971. According to the Board, the land claimed by the petitioners was not the one that was not taken possession by the Housing Board on the ground that the land was occupied by the hutment-dwellers, was encroached and huts were in existence. The 'petition schedule land' in Land Grabbing Case and the land in respect of which Writ Petition No. 4194 of 1988 was filed, were different. The land for which approval of the layout was sought from MCH and the land under the Writ Petition were also different. It was, therefore, submitted that neither the Board can be said to be 'land grabber' nor the petitioners were entitled to any relief. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Special Court framed requisite issues, examined witnesses, perused the record, considered the evidence adduced by the parties and passed final order on September 4, 1995 partly allowing the petition and directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take appropriate steps to deliver possession of the 'petition schedule land' to the petitioners by evicting the A.P. Housing Board within two months and report compliance in accordance with law. It, however, held that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had perfected their title over the land possessed by them by 'adverse possession'. The Court granted liberty to respondent Nos. 14, 16 to 18 and 34 to 36 to establish before a regular Civil Court their title in respect of land in their possession clarifying that the judgment rendered by it would not affect the rights of those respondents.