DISTRICT COLLECTOR RANGAREDDY Vs. K NARASLNG RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen from a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking interference in the alleged demolition of the houses of the petitioner-respondents in Begumpet,one of the quarters of the city of Hyderabad. The prayer, which appeared quite innocuous and sensible for a direction to the appellants herein to demolish the houses only by following the procedure prescribed by law, however, is based on a claim of title, in respect of which a brief history of the land transactions is stated in the writ petition. Learned single Judge has taken notice of the facts, which read as follows:

(2.) Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, the District Collector, Hyderabad and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, from which it transpires that as per Revenue Records the land belonged to Paigh Sir Vicar-Ul-Umara and under the direct control and superintendence of Paigah Authorities upto 1950 and later under the control of the Court of Wards, which control continued even up-to-date. The land was acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad as per the Award No. A5/423/LA/62 on the requisition of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Special Buildings Division No. II for construction of Secretariat Staff Quarters and "physical possession" of the land was handed over to the R&B Department in the year 1964 and the staff quarters were also constructed. Petitioner-respondents never had, according to the counter affidavit, any right or title over the land in question. In the suit for specific performance, neither the Court of Wards was a defendant nor the Government of the State. Any constructions made by the petitioner-respondents were in violation of Sections 428 and 433 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. They got such constructions done without their obtaining the necessary sanction, there being any land approved and without thus there being any legal coverage to protect or to assert that there was any semblance of the existence of a legal right or title in favour of the petitioner-respondents. Learned single Judge stated in the impugned judgment as follows:

(3.) We have good reasons to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not suited for any adjudication into the title of any person in a property. We have, however, good reasons to differ with the view taken by the learned single Judge that Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act is not available to the appellants for removal of the alleged encroachments upon a land, which satisfies the requirements under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Section 6 of the Act states: