DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. G DAYAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in W.P.Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 against the common order dt. 17-8-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing those two writ petitions. W.P.No. 20530 of 2002 is filed by five petitioners therein requesting this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, of the land in S.No. 67 of Madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by the 3rd respondent. As common questions of law and facts arise in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition, we are disposing of the writ appeals as well as the writ petition by a common order.

(2.) The Government is the owner of the land situated in Sy.No. 64 of Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. In or about the year 1992 the Government allotted about Ac. 45-00 of its land in Sy.No. 64 of Madhapur village to Shilparamam and inducted the later into possession of the said land. The adjoining land in Sy.No. 67 appears to be a private land. The petitioners in W.P.No. 7364 of 2000 claimed that part of the land in Sy.No. 67 with an extent of about Ac. 1-36 guntas of land was divided into 16 plots and sold to different individuals from time to time under separate registered sale deeds. They further claimed that they are the owners of plot Nos. 1,2,14 and 16 of the said layout. According to them on 5-10-1997 Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, with the help of the police demolished the compound walls and houses of the petitioners in spite of objection by the petitioners. Challenging the so called high handed action of the respondents, previously they filed W.P.No. 26012 of 1997 on 6-10-1997 seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in allegedly interfering with the possession and ownership of petitioners' land in plot Nos. 1, 2, 12 to 15 in Sy.No. 67 (part), Madhapur village as arbitrary, illegal and void and for a consequent order of restraint against the respondents. The said writ petition was opposed by the present appellants. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 10-06-1999. The direction by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition is as follows:

(3.) Subsequent to the said direction, Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, according to the writ petitioners, conducted survey operations and made demarcations and the plans and found that plot Nos. 1, 2,12,14,15 and part of 16 are located in Sy.No. 67 and also found the existing fence lying in Sy.No. 67 and not in Sy.No. 64. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the report of Regional Deputy Director, the petitioners in W.P. No. 26012 of 1997 filed W.P.No. 7364 of 2000 seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act and implement the findings recorded by the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No. 26012 of 1997 dated 10-06-1999 in respect of plot Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 16 of Sy.No. 67 of Madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The two petitioners in W.P.NO. 10308 of 2000 sought a similar relief regarding plot Nos. 12, 13 and 15. The respondents contested both the writ petitions. Inter alia the respondents pleaded that Regional Deputy Director did not complete the survey and demarcation operations in the disputed lands. They also contended that the respondents preferred a statutory appeal before the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records at Hyderabad and obtained interim orders suspending the report of Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records. The said appeal is still pending. These two writ petitions came up for hearing before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier writ in W.P.NO. 26012 of 1997. He disposed of both the writ petitions by a common order dated 17-08-2001. Regarding the appeal pending before the appellate authority, the learned Single Judge opined that the report of the Regional Deputy Director is in pursuance of the directions of this court and therefore no appeal could be filed and even if any appeal is filed, it has to be ignored for all practical purposes. He was of the opinion that the order of the Regional Deputy Director should be implemented in its totality so as to eliminate any boundary disputes between the parties. He declared that appeal pending on the file of the Special Commissioner - Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records is incompetent and without jurisdiction. He held that the report of the Regional Deputy Director is binding on the parties. Accordingly he allowed both the writ petitions and directed the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to earmark the boundary as per his report dated 7-2-2000 and plan annexed thereto in the presence of respondents 2 and 4 and accordingly the respective parties shall protect their boundaries without any further dispute among themselves. He also directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above three appeals are filed by the respondents in the above two writ petitions.