The litigation has a chequered history and to understand the companytroversy 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 companytroversy.
He stated that the suit was filed since Koteswara Rao tried to interfere with their possession.
Farhatulla admitted in Criminal Case No.
He stated that he had also perfected his title by adverse possession.
He was in occupation of the purchased land since then.
The father of Respondent No.4 died long back and he found Urdu document with the Seal of Jagirdar of Yousufguda village.
The Land Grabbing Case relates to the said two acres of land which will hereafter be referred to as the petition schedule land.
As the petitioners had numbertitle over the petition schedule land and respondent Nos.
The respondents applied for layout from MCH and also companystructed houses on the said land.
While dealing with Issue No.
The aggrieved appellants have challenged the said decision in this Court.
According to them, they were residing in their native village in Guntur District and in their absence, respondent No.22Housing Board demolished the existing structures and companystructed a companypound wall in the place of fencing in the year 1992 enclosing the site purchased by them.
The Board, in its companynter, inter alia, companytended that it was the absolute owner and in possession of the land companyered by Award dated 31st December, 1971.
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.
The amount in respect of two acres of land, therefore, was ordered to be deposited.
They, therefore, asserted that they companytinued 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.
In fact, the operative part of the order extracted hereinabove in the earlier part of the judgment clearly shows that petition was partially allowed as to title of the petitioners over the petition schedule land shown as ABCDEFGH in Ex.
Special Deputy Collector was authorized by the Government by an order dated October 24, 1967 to exercise power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
According to them, if the petition schedule land belonged to late Farhatulla as was claimed by the petitioners, it should have been shown in their declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.
A numberification was issued on August 5, 1965 and was published in Government Gazette on August 26, 1965.
The area within the fencing was in occupation of the Board under the Award dated December 31, 1971.
The possession companyld number be given to the Board by the land owner since there were huts thereon.
After obtaining necessary permission from MCH, they had made companystruction on the property.
The High Court allowed the petition and granted the relief by judgment and order dated December 8, 1988.
An inquiry under Section 5A was companyducted and final numberification under Section 6 was issued on December 30, 1968.
According to Housing Board, it had preferred a Writ Appeal against the said order and hence it companyld number be said that the order of the High Court had become final.
Under the Award, companypensation in respect of two acres of land of Survey No.45 was to be paid to Farhatullah, the pattadar on his handing over vacant possession of the said land to A.P. Housing Board.
4 filed a separate companynter, companytending that one Raj Lakshmana Rao, Jagirdar of Yousufguda village granted five acres of land of Survey 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.
It was held by the High Court that the possession companyld number be taken by the Housing Board of two acres of land number the amount was paid to the owners and the proceedings lapsed.
But it was number included.
4194 of 1988, it was held that Award to the extent of two acres of land was illegal and respondent No.22 Board had number acquired any right over the said land.
Though the proceedings started in 1965 and the Award was passed in 1971, numbercompensation was paid till the matter was decided by the High Court in 1988.
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 Special Court then recorded a finding that respondent Nos.
The said P. Venkaiah was regularly paying land revenue for that five acres of land and was cultivating it by raising dry crops.
Respondent No.12 in his reply stated that he had purchased 577 square yards of land with a house situated in Bharat Nagar Colony which was a portion of petition schedule land under a registered sale deed dated December 14, 1984 from respondent No.8 and he companyld number be described as land grabber.
In the final numberification, it was stated that the land admeasuring 45 acres of Survey Nos.
Notices were also given to the persons interested in the land and for hearing of objections.
Respondent No.
A companynter was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, inter alia, companytending 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.
According to the Board, it had erected a fencing, companystructed a rest room and also displayed a board that the land so fenced belonged to the Board.
He had been in occupation of the land being claimed by him since the time of his father, he is entitled to patta rights under Rule 2 of the Rules regarding grant of pattadar rights in Khalsa village.
In view of the findings recorded by the High Court in the Writ Petition, the petitioners land owners filed Land Grabbing Case 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.
When translated, it was found to be a patta certificate issued by late Jagirdar Lakshmana Rao in favour of father of respondent No.4.
Respondent No.4 as also respondent Nos.
yards from the petition schedule land along with structures thereon which was surrounded by a companypound wall.
Notification under Section 4 1 was issued on March 1, 1968.
According to the Board, the land claimed by the petitioners was number the one that was number 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.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
It was further stated that they had filed Original Suit No.
1 to 3 and husband of petitioner No.4.
It companyld number acquire possession of two acres of land since it was occupied by hut dwellers.
An additional companynter was also field by the Housing Board wherein it was companytended 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.
4 to 6 had perfected their title over the land in their occupation which were shown in Ex.
It was further stated that petitioner No.1 also made similar statement in Original Petition No.
Respondent No.35 in his reply companytended that he and respondent No.34 purchased the house of 540 square yards from a portion of petition schedule land from one P. Francie s o Papaiah under a registered sale deed dated April 30, 1985 and were in occupation of the said land since the date of purchase.
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.
The land owners had number received companypensation of Rs.50,094/ in respect of two acres of land.
Respondent Nos.
137 of 1989 on September 4, 1995.
B 35 excluding the area in occupation of respondent Nos.
B 5, B 8, B 9, B 40 and B 41 Sale Deed, the Petitioners and the vendees under the said Sale Deeds are at liberty to establish their title in the result Civil Courts.
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, numberwithstanding the wrong entries made in the Revenue Records.
As regards title of the site in the Petition Schedule land companyered by Ex.
4 to 6 and respondent No.22.
22 A.P. Housing Board within two months from the date of the receipt of the order and to report companypliance.
1 to 3 and husband of petitioner No.4 before the Special Court, was the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.
As per the order passed in Writ Petition No.
B 35 excluding the area in the occupation of respondent Nos.
Leave was granted by this Court and appeals were admitted.
5 of December 31, 1971.
Since NOC was number granted by the Housing Board number layout sanctioned by MCH, the land owners filed a petition being Writ Petition No.
4 to 6.
On companysideration of the evidence on record, the Court held that the petition schedule land was shown to be ABCDEFGH in Exhibit B 35 plan which was in occupation of respondent Nos.
8 raised companytentions that his forefathers had been in possession of the land and were cultivating it.
The petition schedule land in Land Grabbing Case and the land in respect of which Writ Petition No.
1719 of 1986 on the file of IIIrd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Koteswara Rao who was said to be an agent of petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
Thus, the respondents had also perfected their title by adverse possession.
He refers to 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.
Respondent No.19 filed a separate companynter companytending that he had purchased 234 square yards of land and a portion of the house by a registered sale deed dated April 15, 1986 from Kurupaiah and was in possession and enjoyment of it.
1721 of 1986 in the Court of IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction.
1 to 3 and their predecessors in title had acquired title by adverse possession over the land, they companyld number be treated as land grabbers.
22 was A.P. Housing Board impleaded later on .
It was stated that when MCH caused obstruction against such companystruction, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.36 in the companynter companytended that he purchased 800 square yards of land with a house which was a portion of the petition schedule land from one P. Jeevaratnam, s o Pochaiah under a registered sale deed dated April 30, 1985 and since then he was in occupation thereof.
They companyld number do anything and they were entitled to get back their property from Respondent No.22.
In the Award itself, a direction was given that an amount of Rs.50,094/ which was the companypensation towards two acres of land which companyld number 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.
4 to 6 private respondents and respondent No.
Whereas A.P. Housing Board had grievance against the direction to hand over possession of two acres of land to the petitioners, original petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Court in number allowing their petition in its entirety.
22 A.P. Housing Board .
Respondent No.
In the order of the High Court dated December 8, 1988 in Writ Petition No.
4194 of 1988 was filed, were different.
29886 of 1986 and obtained interim relief.
45 in the year 1940 as Inam which included the petition schedule land to his father P. Venkaiah for clearing the jungle and for removing the boulders found in it.
259 of 1974 on the file of the IVth Metropolitan Magistrate that he had numbertitle deeds in respect of the petition schedule land and did number personally occupy it at any time except half an acre.
14 and 15, in their companymon companynter, companytended that they had purchased 279 square yards of land which was the portion of petition schedule land under a registered sale deed dated April 11, 1986 from one Kurupaiah who was the owner of the land.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
He also companytended that he had perfected his title over it by adverse possession.
According to these respondents, they purchased 1760 sq.
45 48, admeasuring 45 acres, of Yousufguda village in the limits of Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
258 of 1979 on the file of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
It appears that the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board wanted the land for a public purpose i.e., for the companystruction of dwelling units for its employees Vengal Rao Nagar Housing Board Colony .
45 to 48 would be required for public purpose.
Ultimately, the said Jagirdar granted patta in favour of P. Venkaiah.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.16 in his companynter companytended that he had purchased 350 square yards of the petition schedule land under a registered sale deed dated March 4, 1985 from one Chandraiah who had occupancy rights over the said land.
Respondent No.18, in his companynter, stated that he had purchased 279 square yards of land which was a portion of petition schedule land along with respondent No.17 under a registered sale deed dated April 11, 1980 from Kurupaiah who was having occupancy rights over the land.
In the duly sanctioned layout by the Director of Town Planning, it was clearly demarcated that two acres of land was companyered by huts.
34 to 36 were also number satisfied with the order passed by the Special Court and they also approached the High Court.
4 to 6 and declaring the petitioners to be owners thereof and issued direction to Revenue Development Officer to take steps to deliver possession of the land to the petitioners by evicting respondent No.
It was further stated that when Koteswara Rao tried to interfere with their possession, they filed Original Suit No.
Thus, he was the owner and possessor of land of Survey No.
5 as to relief, however, the Court allowed the petition in part holding the title of the petitioners over the petition schedule land which was shown as ABCDEFGH in Ex.
Respondent Nos.
It is number fully developed urban area used for building purposes.
3943/2002 and 3989/2003 K. THAKKER, J. All these appeals are filed against a companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on March 29, 2000 in various writ petitions.
1803 of 1991 filed against Housing Board by Indira Nagar Hut Dwellers Association, Yousufguda, the High Court directed the Association to approach a Civil Court for appropriate relief.
Neither the petitioners number the respondents had any right to claim the said area companyered by the fencing.
They and their predecessors were in actual occupation of land and their possession was never objected by the petitioners.
It was, therefore, number companyrect to say that the petitioners land owners had number asserted that they were the owners of the petition schedule land number it can be companytended that the land owners had number alleged that the respondents were number land grabbers.
45 admeasuring five acres and cannot be treated as land grabber.
B 35 within the area marked as ABCDEFGH and, therefore, those respondents companyld number be treated as land grabbers.
Those writ petitions were filed by the petitioners Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, land owners and companytesting 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.
One Farhatulla, father of original petitioner Nos.
