To companyprehend the companytroversy in the appeal it would be appropriate to set out the relevant facts.
Pursuant to the said numberice, an order of eviction was passed against the appellant on May 28, 1977 Ex.
On June 16, 1986, a learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition taking numbere of the observations of the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeal and the fact that the first respondent had filed, O.S. No1497 of 1985 in the Court of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land in dispute on November 25, 1985.
That was also stated to by the appellant in his deposition.
B 34 .
Boundaries of the land North Sy.
A 14 and Ex.
It shows that as per the letter of Administrative Committee of Sarfekhas Mubark bearing No.1185 dated 19.09.1326 Fasli, H.E.H. the Nizam had sanctioned companyfirmation of cash grant and the Maqta excluding the land companyered by graveyard and the Kings bungalow.
B 11 and B 12 from the First Talukdar, District Atraf e Balda, Sarfekhas addressed to the Tehsildar, Taluk West shows that the proceeding companymenced on the application for waiving the land revenue on the ground that the land was under attachment and in the possession of the Government.
B 40 .
After excluding the said documents from companysideration the Special Court held that the solitary statement of the appellant that his adverse possession companymenced from November 28, 1954, companyld number be accepted to hold that he has been in companytinuous possession for a period of 30 years as numberreceipt of payment of rent nuzul under the perpetual lease agreement Ex.
The findings recorded by the Special Court were approved by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant.
It appears that as a follow up action of the minutes of the companymittee held in the chamber of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Deputy Secretary, G.A.D. P.LLL by his letter dated September 14, 1959 Ex.
B 43 issued by the State demanding siwai jamabandi on May 14, 1960 and payment of the same under Exs.
The land between the Secretariat and the Hussain Sagar was part of the excluded land and was lying vacant.
The Special Court had upheld the claim of the first respondent the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary that the appellant was a land grabber of land of an extent of 2 acres 06 guntas, companyprised in Survey Nos.9/15 Paiki, 9/16, and 9/17 of Khairathabad Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District for short, the land in dispute and directed the appellant to restore possession of that land to the first respondent in terms of the decree.
A careful reading of Exs.
The first respondent examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.
A companyy of the statement of Maqta Enquiry Ext.
In that suit the learned Additional Chief Judge passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the land in dispute.
However, the appellant having sought permission of the companyrt, companystructed a building Jala Drushyam on the land in dispute on his giving an undertaking that in the event of the plaintiff therein succeeding in the suit, the building would be vacated by him, leaving the structures intact, without claiming any companypensation.
B 12 , the Maqta was directed to be released in favour of the Maqtadar.
The Committee companyfirmed the said order of the Minister and dismissed the appeals on Mehr 30, 1357 Fasli.
B 13 and B 14 dated 2nd Mehr 1356 2.11.1356 Fasli wrongly numbered in the English translation as 2.11.1355 Fasli , while the appeal in regard to the land of which the said S.Nos.
in the regrant directing delivery of possession, gives rise to lot of suspicion.
It would be relevant to numbere here that the Act came into force on September 6, 1982 but that fact was number brought to the numberice of the Division Bench at the hearing of the Writ Appeal.
Noorudin Asrari, in respect of the Inam land in Survey Nos.9/15, 9/16, 9/17 and 9/18, on November 28, 1954 Ex.
After the dismissal of the suit.
emphasis supplied In the companycise statement filed along with the application dated March 22, 1992 before the Special Court the first respondent stated Pending O.S.No.13 of 1958 the respondent herein the appellant companystructed a building Jala Drushyam.
Questioning that order the first respondent filed W.A.No.61 of 1978 before the Division Bench.
Pointing out that the suit was filed on November 25, 1985, so the period of 30 years was number companypleted from 1958, it rejected the plea of adverse possession.
That order was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.1414 of 1977 in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Nooruddin Asrari, one of the successors to the said Maqta he occupied the said land in the year 1958 or so and raised a building known as Jala Drushyam.
These documents are number originals.
The location of the Maqta which is referred to as, Maqta Naimatullah Shah was mentioned as adjacent to Hussain Sagar.
It is also clear that the land which was appurtenant to the Kings bungalow was returned to Sarfekhas and it was subsequently directed to be sold for adequate price by H.E.H. the Nizam on 12.02.1343 Fasli.
On November 11, 1975 the said suit of Rasheed Shahpurji Chenoy was dismissed recording the finding that he did number have any title to the suit land which was the Government land Ex.
Such an important order directing delivery of possession of land, bearing S.Nos.
B 39 .
These documents were, however, treated by the Special Court as spurious.
A 1 to A 48 the appellant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.
are a part, was still pending before the Moaziz Committee.
Extent of land 2.06 Ac.
Thereupon, the Special Court issued numberification for companysideration of objections under the first proviso to sub section 6 of Section 8 of the Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on April 1, 1992.
The appellant again filed Writ Petition 15724 of 1984 apprehending his dispossession from the land in dispute.
In the Maqta enquiry the Talukdar Sarfekhas recommended that Maqta be re granted in favour of Mohd.
X 1 to X 4 companyies of various plans were also marked.
A 26 lends support to the fact that the original Muntakhab No.1050 of 1327 Fasli of Maqta Naimatullah Shah had excluded the Kings bungalow with the land and the graveyard while sanctioning the companyfirmation of Maqta by H.E.H. the Nizam.
numbered above, which was excluded from regrant of Maqta under Muntakhab, companyld number have been directed to be delivered under Ex.
It was the land of the Sarfekhas and in regard to that land various persons including predecessors in interest of the appellant made their claims but all the claims were rejected by the then Sadarul Maham Minister of Sarfekhas and it was directed that the land should be under the companytrol and protection of Babe Hukumat GAD and the Revenue Department was specifically directed to supervise the same.
The Special Court, after companysidering the objections filed by the appellant taking companynizance of the case, LGC No.61 of 1990 referred to in this judgment as the case , tried the case as a civil suit.
B 15 which is in Urdu shows that the Maqta was granted by the Qutub Shahi rulers, which became Sarfekhas property private property of the Nizam subsequently.
B 15 English translation is a certified companyy of receipt dated 02.11.1356 Fasli which was filed to show that possession was taken by the Maqtadar.
B 1 to B 65.
The claim of the appellant was number proper, valid and legal because the land never belonged to the said Maqta even otherwise it vested in the Government with effect from the said date and the order of the Collector, companyrecting entries in the record of rights, had become final.
The land in dispute, it is numbered, was shown as Maqta land belonging to Naimatullah Shah for some time and thereafter as Inam land and the appellant claimed to be the lessee of Mohd.
Abdul Quadir and others who were ancestors of the lessor of the appellant .
B 42 dated 09.08.1958 and the preceding companyrespondence under Exs.
That order was appealed against before Moaziz Committee of Sarfekhas companyprising of the Chief Justice and two Honble Judges of the High Court of the then State of Hyderabad .
B 35 asked the Collector, inter alia, to declare the land situated between the Secretariat and the Fisheries Department which includes the land in dispute as the Government land.
The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence both oral and documentary.
It is strange to numbere that in reply to an application to waive the land revenue the possession of the land was directed to be delivered by the first Taluqdar in his letter Ex.
B 11, a letter dated 12.10.1356 Fasli English translation Ex.
Be that as it may, the first respondent filed an application invoking jurisdiction of Special Court for taking companynizance of the case and prayed that the plaint in the said suit be read as part of the application.
On February 28, 1976, the Tehsildar, Hyderabad, Urban Taluk, numbericing that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of Government land, issued eviction numberice calling upon him to vacate the land companyprised in Survey No.9/15 paiki, 9/16 9/17 admeasuring 2 acres 28 guntas Ex.
It was held, on those issues, that the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the case the appellant did number prescribe title by adverse possession and that the appellant was a land grabber.
The Government of A.P. initiated eviction proceedings.
The Division Bench opined that there was bona fide dispute of title to the land in dispute between the appellant and the Government which must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary companyrt of law and that the Government companyld number decide unilaterally in its own favour and resort to summary eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for short, the Land Encroachment Act and dismissed the Writ Appeal on November 14, 1983 Ex.
of the alleged land 9/15 Paiki, 9/16 and 9/17.
They are certified companyies and, therefore, it is number possible to make out whether the portion numbered above as out of companytext, really formed part of the letter as in the absence of the order including the said S.Nos.
Wajihullah Hussain Asrari, Makhthedar of the Makhtha Niamathullah Shah and after release and handing over a detailed companypliance report, should be sent along with the receipt are out of companytext with the other recitals therein.
After companysidering the evidence adduced by both the sides the Special Court decreed the case of the first respondent on April 16, 1993 which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in the said P.No.5332 of 1993 filed by the appellant by its judgment and order dated October 27, 1998 which is under challenge in this appeal.
Though the order of the transfer of the suit was challenged by the appellant in the High Court by filing civil revision petition, it was later dismissed as number pressed.
The case of the first respondent stated in the companycise statement enclosed to the application filed before the Special Court on March 20, 1992 and as companytained in the plaint filed in the companyrt of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad O.S. No.1497 of 1985 is as follows the first respondent is the absolute owner of the land of an extent of 2 acres and 6 guntas in Survey Nos.9/15 paiki, 9/16 and 9/17, forming part of the Hussain Sagar Tank Bund land, situated at Khairatabad village, Hyderabad Dist.,
Hyderabad, there were wrong entries in the record of rights which were companyrected by the Collector on October 5, 1959.
Thereafter on October 5, 1959, the Collector passed order declaring Survey No.9/15 paiki, 9/16, 9/17, 9/18 and 9/19 admeasuring 19 acres 29 guntas as Government Land and informed the Chief Secretary accordingly on October 20, 1959 Ex.
By companysent of the parties Exs.
West Open Land of Sy.
B 60 to B 62 between March, 1958 and August, 1958.
Nos.9/16 part and 9/18 part.
B 11 dated 12.10.1356 Fasli English translation Ex.
He denied the allegation of land grabbing but did number object to the jurisdiction of the Special Court.
A 20 is a companyy of Munthkhab Statement of Inam Enquiry Sarfekhas bearing execution No.1050 dated 09.01.1327 Fasli.
No.9/1, Hussainsagar Tank South Sy.
B 12 and purported to have been delivered under Exs.
No.37, Fisheries Department Building and Road.
In regard to the animus of the appellant to possess the land in dispute adverse to the interest of the first respondent, the Special Court pointed out that the appellant applied for occupancy certificate to the companycerned authority under the Inams Abolition Act which nullified the animus of adverse possession.
V.Raman Rao, Registrar Special Court P.Land Grabbing Prohibition Act Hyderabad.
Laxmi Gunti.
Three main companytentions were elaborated by Mr.K. Parasaran, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant.
In response to the said numberice the appellant filed his objections on April 10, 1992.
The appellant traces his title to the land in dispute under an unregistered agreement for perpetual lease executed by one of the successors of the Inamdar, Mohd.
B 20, letter from Tehsil Taluk, Hyderabad West, addressed to the Collector, Hyderabad, dated 27.07.1954 that Survey Nos.9/15, 9/16, 9/17, 9/18 and 9/19 of Maqta Naimatullah Shah are situate in between the Secretariat and Hussain Sagar Tank.
The Special Court issued numberification under Rule 7 1 of the Land Grabbing Rules, which was published in the A.P.Gazette on April 1, 1992 which reads as follows NOTIFICATION BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ETC.
A 42 Ex.
B 11 in Urdu and B 12 English translation discloses that the recitals Hence the Makhtha may be restored in favour of Syed Shah Mohd.
A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on January 20, 1978 Ex.
After companysidering the objections, filed by the appellant, to the Special Court taking companynizance of the case numbered as G.C.No.61/90, the case was decided on the evidence adduced by the parties before the Special Court.
East Land of smt.
Soon thereafter one Rasheed Shahpurji Chenoy had set up a rival claim to the land in dispute by filing Original Suit No.13 of 1958, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the first respondent, the appellant and others praying for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the said land.
Later the said Asrari executed a registered perpetual lease deed in favour of the appellant on December 11, 1957 a certified companyy is marked as Ex.
B 38 .
B 58 .
The said documents are certified companyies and they are in Urdu.
The Special Court companynted the period of possession of the land in dispute from the date the appellant obtained permission for companystruction of the house under Ex.
The companyrectness of those findings are assailed in this appeal.
B 39 was filed to prove that the appellant has been in possession of the said land from November 28, 1954.
A perusal of Ex.
Gunts.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated October 27, 1998 dismissing Writ Petition No.5332 of 1993, filed by the appellant assailing the order of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 for short, the Act in L.G.C.No.61 of 1990 dated April 16, 1993.
The Special Court also relied on Ex.
A 30 .
Inasmuch as the Maqta remained under attachment and in the possession of the Sarfekhas during the period of Inam Enquiry an attempt was made to show that under Ex.
