1 to 62 had also got themselves impleaded as parties in the appeal which has been decided against them.
170 is in Sarkari Abadi Land.
It may also be mentioned that according to the appellants, the respondents Nos.
Since the appeal kept on pending, yet another writ petition No.
6009/96 police protection was also provided to the writ petitioners respondents here .
170, measuring 8 acres.
The appeal, preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has been dismissed, which is the subject matter of appeals in hand.
The authorities were directed to companysider the sanction of the plan without insisting for exemption certificate.
3606/96 was filed to restrain the authorities from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in the writ petition over the land, till disposal of their appeal.
Possession of appellant was also number found.
The lay out plan, however, was again returned on the ground that S No.
The facts in brief, relevant for purposes of disposing of these matters are that the land over which the respondents proposed to raise companystruction and had submitted plans therefor, falls in the limits of Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
All the appeals have been heard together along with Special Leave Petition C Nos.406 409/02 in which we grant leave.
Another writ petition No.6012/95 was filed, challenging the above order.
A prayer made for interim injunction was rejected by order dated 12.10.92.
6604/2001 Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Appellant Court Compound, Secunderabad rep.
The respondents moved application to the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board for sanction of lay out in respect of part of the land of S. No.
The application for sanction of the plan was returned to the respondents with an objection that they were required to furnish exemption certificate under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.
Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL N0.
According to the appellants, till the year 1992 the respondents extended numberclaim, whatsoever, to the land in question.
It gave rise to filing of yet another writ petition No.
The said writ petition was also allowed by order dated 6.12.95 with a direction to the authorities to find out as to whether the respondents had established a prima facie case as to their possession and also to companysider the objection of the Union of India and to pass an appropriate order thereof.
The writ petitioners, namely, the present respondents were held to be in possession over the property.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 10.5.1996 holding that the respondents had numbertitle to the land in question.
An appeal was preferred against that order.
By Executive Officer Versus Weavers represented by their Chairman, T.K.Kodandaram Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.of 2003 L.P. NOS.
With such observation, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, directed the Cantonment Board to sanction the lay out plan.
It is also the case of respondents that Syed Sirujdin Ali Khan on attaining majority relinquished his rights in favour of his father Syed Sadiq Ali Khan by means of a deed dated 11.8.1911.
An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Commissioner of Land Revenue under Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act which was dismissed on 15.3.97.
The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held that the authorities were number required to go into the question of title of the applicants in the land.
However, the respondent Sadiq Ali Khan filed a petition under Section 15 2 of the Record of the Rights Regulation Act for companyrection of entries in the Revenue Records to the extent of 25 acres, on the basis of an unregistered sale deed.
The application for sanction of plan was ultimately dismissed on 18.1.1996, refusing permission, as the land was found to have been in possession of Government of India.
753/2001 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Appellant Collector, Hyderabad Dist.
Respondents BRIJESH KUMAR,J. All the above numbered appeals though filed by different parties, involve the same question relating to the legality of the order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the judgments later passed following the above said decision.
1107 1111/2001 Union of India Appellant Versus Mohammed Mohiuddin Ors.
By means of yet another order passed in writ petition No.
The Writ petition was allowed on 30.9.94, and it was held that numbersuch exemption certificate under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 was required to be furnished.
,Andhra Pradesh Versus Mohammed Mohiuddin Ors.
Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL N0.
6376/2001 Syed Sadiq Ali Khan Appellant Versus The Executive Officer Ors.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL N0.
This prayer was granted on 27.2.1996.
The learned Single Judge also companysidered the case of the appellants that the land was companyered under the old grant and found that numberland was granted to the Government of India by Nizam for military purposes.
he was entitled for injunction against dispossession, but so far the rest of the land is companycerned measuring near about 63 acres it was in the ownership and possession of the Government of India.
10804/96 against the order dismissing the appeal.
The said application was rejected by order dated 9.4.92 by the District Revenue officer, holding that land measuring only 2.71 acres out of the land of Bungalow No.215 was in the private hands and the rest of the land was Government land which has been companyrectly shown to be so in the revenue records.
Some other developments also took place during all this period.
The companytroversy revolves around the refusal to sanction the plan submitted by different parties to the Cantonment Board for companystruction of building over the land in question.
406 409/2002 M s.Weavers Educational Advance Vocational Economic Rehabilitation Society, represented by its Chairman K.Kodandaram Appellant Versus Union of India Ors.
The respondents challenged the return of the layout plan and filed a writ petition 4250 of 1994, before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
