yard as valued by the State itself in the application filed U s.8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act and numbered as L.G.C. No.
Land purchased by M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited from Fazal Nawaz Jung in Jubilee Hills Municipality Plot No.129/75/D1 under as agreement of Sale, dated 17.9.1963 outside companypound .
No.403.
As the appellant did number stop the companystruction work purportedly in disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, the respondent No.1 was companypelled to file a companytempt petition.
G. Kalavathi was part of the 19 acres of land which was the subject matter of the numberice issue by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, on 20.6.1986 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which was quashed in Writ Petition No.11714 of 1986 and had been utilised for companystructing the ministers quarters.
Land occupied by M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited without any authority in Sy.
It was sought to be justified that since there were numbercertified records number any revenue records to show the right, title and interest of the petitioner in Sub Division No.129/36/1 in the record of Shaikpet village, and the same was found to be number existent under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, resumption proceedings were initiated.
However, although, it was number possible to locate exactly the said area on the ground, on actual measurement the area in the reference map was found to companysist of 9 acres 32 guntas.
In relation to the above it was also indicated that the purchases made in respect of serial number 1 to 3 indicated above were from the original owners of the land, whereas the land measuring 19 acres and 3 guntas, indicated in items 4 and 5, which had been occupied by the companypany, was government land in Survey No.403 of Shaikpet village which had been occupied by the said companypany without any authority in law.
129/36/1, being part of Survey No.403 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.
Mr. Nariman pointed out that as would appear from the Report of the Survey Commissioner appointed by the Court an area measuring 13 acres 13 guntas was found to have been purchased by M s Hyderabad Industries Limited from others, which area had been enclosed by a companypound wall on all sides.
From the submissions made and also from the findings in the impugned judgment it is also clear that the said 19 acres of land have already been utilised for companystruction of ministers quarters and as rightly pointed out by the High Court would cause great hardship to the respondents in the event a direction was given to them to restore the land to the respondents.
The High Court then went on to observe as follows Viewed from any angle the respondents clearly disobeyed the orders of this Court and they companymitted companytempt of Court.
The learned companynsel pointed out that in paragraph 2 of the companynter affidavit the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, had stated that since Survey No.403 companyered the entire area popularly known as Banjara Hills and Jubilee Hills area had become a paradise for speculators, the Government had appointed a Special Gr.
It was also pointed out that the land companyered by the green companyoured boundary in the reference map was identical with reference to Road No.13, Banjara Hills and the companypound walls and it was found that the area companysists of Ministers quarters companystructed by the Government and also the land under the occupation of Birla Guest House which has a separate companypound wall.
On this aspect of the matter, it has been observed in the impugned judgment that the State initiated proceedings against the respondent No.1 under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982, in December, 1999, as a companynter blast to the companytempt case alleging that the land in question which was under the occupation of the respondent No.1 was government land.
It was also stated that the inquiry companyducted by the aforesaid official in respect of the Banjara Hills area reveal that the area occupied by M s M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited, companyprises of the following lands Land purchased by M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited, from Sri Md. Azam in Sy.
G. Kalavathi visited the property and thereafter steps were set in motion for filing of the companytempt petition.
Another plot of land measuring 9 acres and 3 guntas were also shown to be in the occupation of M s Hyderabad Industries Limited without any authority to possess the same.
Since the said land was under the occupation of M s. Hyderabad Industries Limited, the question of making companystructions on the said land did number arise.
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, issued a numberice to the Respondent No.1 on 20th June, 1986 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon the said respondent to vacate the land within 3 days from the date of receipt of the numberice.
The respondent No.1 herein leased out the said land measuring ten acres to M s Hyderabad Industries Limited by a registered lease deed dated 27th June, 1971.
Challenging the said numberice, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.
G.Kalavathi by a lease deed dated 28.6.1971 in Survey No.129/36/1.
1563 of 1999 and Contempt Case No.1819 of 1999, holding that deliberate and wilful acts of disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, by the Mandal Revenue Officer and also by the other superior authorities had been amply proved and as such they had companymitted companytempt of Court.
Collector, in 1982, for identification and demarcation of government and private lands in the Banjara Hills area.
No.129/75 of Shaikpet Village vide document No.55/62, dated 11.1.1962.
In order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of respective parties and the circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed, a brief outline of the facts leading to the passing of the said order is set out hereinbelow.
129/75 belonging to M s Hyderabad Industries Limited and in the West by the land belonging to Kazi Mohd.
Certain other directions were also given regarding the question of maintainability, jurisdiction, propriety or companypetence of the petitioners in the land grabbing case to companytinue the same in view of earlier directions given by the High Court, including the direction to institute a civil suit to adjudicate the title to the property.
Since there is numberhing to indicate whether the companystruction work was being carried on during the period when the order of status quo was in force and the companytempt petition was filed almost four years after the order of status quo ceased to operate, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the Division Bench of the High Court companyld have found the appellants herein to have companymitted companytempt of Court.
The total extent of land under the occupation of the Government and being used entirely for companystruction of Ministers quarters was found to be measuring 17 acres and 25 guntas and it was also indicated that it was bounded on all sides by a pucca wall, except on the numberth, where in a portion there was a rubble wall.
It was her case before the High Court that she had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 11th February, 1971, from one Mr. Papaiah, who had purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 28th February, 1963, from one Venkat Swamy.
To put an end to the litigation once for all and since the respondents have already made companystructions over the land in question by flouting the orders passed by this Court and numberpurpose will be served if the respondents are directed to be punished as some of them as on today either transferred or retired from service, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to pay companypensation to the petitioner in the companytempt case at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per sq.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2200 2201 OF 2001 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.2202 OF 2001 And KALAVATHI Appellant Vs.
It is on the basis of the aforesaid facts as disclosed before it that the Division Bench came to the companyclusion that the authorities started companystruction even after the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petition without first approaching the civil companyrt for declaration of its title.
The writ appeal filed by the said Government through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, Hyderabad, was also dismissed and status quo was directed to be maintained for a period of three months from the date of the judgment, namely, 14th September, 1995, to enable the Government to take appropriate steps.
From the facts as stated hereinabove it is clear that M s Hyderabad Industries Limited was in possession of five different plots of land, out of which three plots measuring 13 acres and 13 guntas had been purchased by the said companypany.
The said writ petition was allowed and the numberices issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sections 6 and 7 of the P. Land Encroachment Act was quashed with leave to the Government to file a suit to get its title established.
25 of 2000 or any other reasonable amount in lieu of directing the respondents to redeliver possession of the land in question to the petitioner, in case the proceedings in L.G.C. No.
While Civil Appeal Nos.2200 2201 of 2001 have been filed by the officials found by the High Court to have companymitted companytempt of Court, Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001 has been filed by the writ petitioner, Smt.
G. Kalavathi, being aggrieved by the amount of companypensation fixed by the High Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per square yard.
The fact that companystruction was going on in the land in question came to the knowledge of the respondents herein on 19.11.1999 when Smt.
11714 of 1986 for a declaration that the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing the numberice was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also praying that the said officer be restrained from interfering with her possession over the land.
As far as the land companyered by Birla Guest House built by Hyderabad Industries Limited is companycerned, the same measured 13 acres and 35 guntas and had a pucca companypound wall on all the sides.
The predecessor in interest of the present respondents, one Smt.
G. Kalavathi.
25 of 2000 in view of the earlier proceedings and observations made therein including the directions to institute a civil suit to adjudicate the title to the property is kept open to be companysidered by the Special Court.
However, from the companynter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the writ petition it was evident that apart from the above land which was within their boundary walls the companypany was also in occupation of 10 acres of land which had been leased to it by Smt.
The findings of the High Court in respect of the same must be held to be companytrary to the materials on record.
Venkat Swamy is said to have acquired the property by a patta issued by the companycerned authorities in the year 1340 Fasli, equivalent to the year 1930 of the Christian era.
Hussain in Survey No.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, urged that both the Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court had companypletely failed to take numberice of the fact that the land on which the companystruction work was carried on was number the land which the respondent No.1 had purportedly acquired from Papaiah and that the same had been leased out to M s. Hyderabad Industries Limited.
No.129/36/1.
Subject to the observations indicated above, the companytempt case and the companytempt applications are closed.
yard as valued by the State itself in an application filed under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, against the predecessor in interest of the respondent herein.
129/36.
It is the said order of the High Court which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
The implementation of the order was stayed for a period of six weeks from the date of the order presumably with the intention of allowing the parties to companytest the order before a higher forum.
BANWARLAL ORS.
In spite of the time granted to the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter, numbersteps were taken by the Government to establish its title over the land in question by filing a civil suit.
From the description of the property companytained in the order impugned in this appeal, the said property is bounded on the North by a Nala Government land on the South by Road No.
On the other hand, it has been alleged on behalf of the respondent No.1 that as soon as she came to learn about the companystruction being carried on by the appellants herein over the land in question, she caused telegraphic numberices to be sent to the appellant on 20th November, 1999 and 23rd November, 1999, together with a registered legal numberice issued on 26th November, 1999, calling upon the appellants herein to stop the companystruction work on the land.
Of the remaining two plots, the said companypany was also in occupation of 10 acres of land which had been leased to it by Smt.
In other words, the land leased to the companypany by Smt.
G. Kalavathi, came to be the absolute owner and possessor of 10 acres of land in Survey No.
It was also stated that during the survey it had companye to light that M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited, who were the successors to M s Hyderabad Industries Limited, had occupied a portion of Survey No.403 of Shaikpet village and had companystructed a companypound wall.
G. Kalavathi, W o Venkataswamy through a Lease Deed No.2021/72, dated 28.6.1971 in Sy.
In the other appeal, being Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001, filed by Smt.
Land purchased by M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited from Fazal Nawaz Jung in Jubilee Hills Municipality Plot No.129/75/D1 vide document No.93, dated 29.5.1963.
The said direction was, however, given along with a rider that such companypensation would be paid only in the event the land grabbing case was dismissed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondent herein.
25 of 2000 go in favour of the petitioner.
However, implementation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today.
The period for which status quo was directed to be maintained came to an end on 14.12.1995 and there is numberhing on record to indicate that the order of status quo was ever extended.
This number brings us to the other limb of the order impugned in these appeals.
Respondents Altamas Kabir,J. These appeals by way of special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2001, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Contempt Application No.
The question of maintainability, jurisdiction, propriety or companypetency to companytinue the case in L.G.C. No.
Land occupied by M s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited from Smt.
13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
13 on the East by land in Survey No.
G. Kalavathi, one of the questions raised is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of companypensation at the rate of Rs.5000 per square yard subject to the companydition that the same be paid after the determination of the land grabbing case filed by the State against the respondents under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Provisions Act, 1982.
