KHAJA NASEERUDDIN LATE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the sons of late Ra/a Ali through their General Power of Attorney (GPA). In the first writ petition, they assail the order f the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, the first respondent (hereafter called, the Commissioner), dated 13.06.2005 as well as order of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (hereafter called, Deputy Director) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner by his order directed the Deputy Director to keep the demarcation of Jubilee Mills Municipality (JHM) plot No.SA in abeyance and further ordered to consider the application of third respondent for demarcation of JHM plot No.8. The Commissioner also indicated that the Deputy Director should first reject the request of third respondent and then do the demarcation of plot No.8A or take up demarcation of both the pints simultaneously. The Deputy Director also informed that demarcation of plot No.8A is kept in abeyance till further orders us demarcation of plot No.8 is pending with the Mandal Revenue Officer. Shaikpct (MRO). The second writ petition is filed alleging that while thc first writ petition is pending, the MRO came to the property of petitioners and demolished major portion of the compound wall and therefore, they seek a writ of Mandamus declaring such action of the MRO as illegal and arbitrary with, consequential direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession. Parties arc referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No. 15757 of 2005.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter is as follows. JHM in Shaikpet was established in 1942 and was in existence still in 1948. The then Ruler of Hyderabad State, the Nizam, prepared a layout consisting of 161 plots in survey No.403 admeasuring Ac.2,967.00 guntas. During that regime, plots were sold to different persons but their names wen: not registered in the revenue rccorrds. The land continued to be Government land. The Governmcnt of Andhra Pradesh, by Memo No.3933/Q2/64/17 Revenue Department, dated 06.12.1967 recognised title of the forty-one (41) allottecs, who had paid the amount to JHM. The Government also ratified the action of the District Collector, Hyderabad, in rejecting the claim of others on the ground that the consideration was not paid to Sarf-c-Khas1 Treasury and further directed to demarcate and implement all the 41 recognised plots by issuing supplementary sethwar2. During 1964-1970, Town Survey was conducted as per A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (the Survey Act, for brevity). Notification under Section 13 of the said Act was published in Gazette No.41, dated 06.08.1977. However, the 41 recognised plots of JHM were not implemented in town survey records. They were surveyed as part of Government land. Thereafter, whenever a person among 41 allottees approached the second respondent, demarcation work was taken up followed by issue of supplementary sethwar. In such a manner, 34 plots were implemented in town survey records. The petitioners/purchasers were alllotted plot No.8A of JHM in survey No.403 of Shaikpet village (Road No.2, Banjara Hills). They approached the District Collector for 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC), which was denied. They appealed to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who by order, dated 31.10.2002, remanded the matter to the District Collector. The latter subsequently on 30.03.2005 issued clearance to the; extent of 2,045 square meters in plot No.8A for the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH). On an application made by the petitioners, MCH grantod permission on 29.06.2005 for construction of compound wall.

(3.) At that stage, the petitioners made an application for demarcation of plot No.8A of JHM. It appears third respondent also made similar application for demarcation of plot No.8 alleging it to be part of JHM plots. The Inspector of Survey, a subordinate of second respondent, issued notices to petitioners and third respondent on two occasions. The third respondent allegedly failed to produce documentary evidence and title. Therefore, the boundaries of plot No. 8A alone were demarcated and survey was completed. A Panchanama was also prepared on 31.05.2005. However, on 08.06.2005 the second respondent issued Memo to the petitioners informing that the demarcation of plot No.8A is kept in abeyance till further orders as it is noticed that), demarcation of plot No.8 should have been completed prior to demarcation of plot No.8A and that demarcation of plot No.8 is still pe:nding with MRO. It appears even before the issue of such Memo by second respondent, third respondent approached first respondent by submitting a petition on 03.06.2005. This was purportedly treated as an appeal and first respondent passed an interlocutory order directing second respondent to keep demarcation of Plot No.8A in abeyance. He was asked to take further action as indicated in the said letter, dated 13.06.2005. Aggrieved by two orders - one issued by the first respondent and another isssued by second respondent, writ petition No. 15757 of 2005 is filed.