UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAMMED SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is arising out of the judgment dtd. 24/1/2015 in A.S.No.284 of 2009 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which arose out of the judgment dtd. 11/9/2009 in O.S.No.6042 of 2000 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the original suit.

(3.) The appellant/Union of India, Ministry of Defence, is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to incorporate the names of the plaintiffs/agreement holders/title holders, namely, C. Bharatamma W/o. Buchaiah Choudhari, B. Jansi Laxmi W/o. P.S.Rao and C.Sesha Rao S/o. Buchaiah Choudhari in the General Land Register maintained by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule lands. During the pendency of the suit, a further prayer was made to issue injunction restraining the defendant" authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment together with the development activities over the suit schedule land. The original plaintiff is one Mohd. Saleem. The case of the plaintiff is that originally, one Dawar Ali was the owner of the suit schedule property from 1930 A.D., who in turn sold the land to one Late Buchaiah Choudhary, by delivering the vacant possession of land through a deed dtd. 12/3/1946. During the life time of Buchaiah Choudhary, the boundaries of the said land were fixed on 2/11/1954 at his request and the revenue authorities conducted panchanama. Further, Buchaiah Choudhary used to pay land tax. After his death, his wife and children succeeded to the said land by survivorship and they continued to pay the taxes. The suit schedule property was improved by Buchaiah Choudhary by constructing a farm house, which have become dilapidated later, but they paid taxes by way of challans dtd. 17/1/1974 and under receipt from MTO of the then Hyderabad, dtd. 8/4/1987 and letter dtd. 24/10/1984 of the Tahsildar, Golconda Mandal, who gave "No due certificate" also in the month of August, 1986. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Town Planning addressed a letter dtd. 29/7/1986 to Buchaiah Choudhary calling upon him, to submit documents in respect of 1514 square yards out of the land sought to be acquired for road widening on payment of compensation. Subsequently, the compensation was also paid to the family of Buchaiah Choudhary by proceedings dtd. 30/9/1986 by way of cheque, in the name of plaintiff No.4 who is the son of Buchaiah Choudhary. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, who are the heirs of the deceased Buchaiah Choudhary, proposed to entrust the land for development with A.Narsimha Reddy, A. Niranjan Reddy, Mohd. Ibrahim, M.Ravi Varma, S.Venkat Rao and Shaik Salahuddin by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding on 6/3/1996. Pursuant to the said Memorandum of Understanding, they deposited Rs.3,00,000.00, which was paid to plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as security deposit out of Rs.5,00,000.00, and balance amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 to be paid after the completion of survey and determination of the total extent of land by metes and bounds. In the month of October 2000, when plaintiff No.1 undertook the work of development and started to remove the structures, the defendant-authorities under a baseless claim that the land belongs to the Defence, interfered with the work of the plaintiffs and caused obstruction as if, the land belongs to them. The defendant did not produce any document nor have any right over the suit schedule property. It is the specific averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the suit property since 70 years by legitimate transfer and that the defendant stand barred on the face of law and facts. The original pattadar/Dawar Ali and Buchaiah Choudhary have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. The partners, except one A.Narsimha Reddy, who was not available in the city, executed a letter of authorization to co-operate and pursue the activities in their common commercial interest, plaintiff No.1 filed the original suit.