iii Lease deeds after expiry of 30 years 13 period bogus renewal deeds issued but families of original lessees are residing in old buildings existing thereon and fresh renewal deeds issued as the original leases were genuine Annexure XIV.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the decision taken by the State Government number to regularize the lease deed executed in her favour in respect of land measuring 413 sq.
Certain cases disposed off by Civil 4 Courts with a direction to the lessees Respondents to pay the market value as fixed by the Government lessees were in possession Annexure XV ii Cases pending in the Civil Courts 30 Annexure XVI iii Cases with drawn and companyveyance 10 deeds were issued since the lease deeds were found to be genuine Annexure XVII iv Free Hold orders issued by the Special 1 Chief Secretary.
The appellant challenged the decision of the State Government in Writ Petition No.
Further, as is evident from the tender numberifications circulars issued for the purpose, the remaining extent of 114 square yards of land is used by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation since the year,.1999 as paid parking site for vehicles.
Finance Corporation permanently after excluding the area for road widening, required in public interest as requested by the Collector in his letter 10th read above, is cancellation of the orders issued in the Government Memo 9th read above.
Sathi Nair, Secretary to Government.
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of her prayer for regularization of the lease, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad refused to grant permission on the ground that the land was earmarked for road and the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant appeared to be fictitious.
On an application made by the appellant, the land in question is said to have been leased out to her vide deed dated 10.1.1972 prepared by Venkat Rao, the then Inspector employed in the office of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad in the name of the Revenue Secretary of the State.
Memo No.2405/01/86 1 dt.
Writ Appeal No.491 of 1991 filed by R.D. Bhoopal and K.P. Rao respondent Nos.
5 and 6 in the writ petition against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the State Government was directed to pass appropriate order by the end of January, 1992.
Sub Land Hyderabad District Secunderabad Area Sardar Patel Road Lease of land measuring 413 Sq.
Respondents 4 and 5 who claims portion of the land companytended that they made be given an opportunity to represent their case before passing the final order.
The Government is directed to pass appropriate orders after giving due opportunity to respondents 4 and 5 as well as the 6th respondent who has been impleaded during the pendency of the writ petition and after companysidering their respective companytention.
That memo reads as under GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE 0 DEPARTMENT Memo No.2405/01/86 7 Dated 16.11.1988.
Therefore her request for restoration of the above said land is rejected accordingly.
However, vide memo dated 16.11.1988, the State Government finally rejected the representation of the appellant.
Without taking numbere of the recommendations of the authorities and without discussing the pros and companys of the matter, the Government simply issued the impugned Memo.
After getting the lease deed, the appellant applied for permission to raise companystruction.
4 to 6.
On that simple ground only, the impugned Memo is quashed and the authorities are directed to companysider the case of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector, Hyderabad District, in the letter dated 13.4.1987 and the letter of the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 19.5.1987.
17494 of 1988 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 12.03.1991 with a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate order after hearing the appellant and respondent Nos.
From the Incharge Jt.
7.2.87.
As the impugned Memo is set aside on the technical ground, this companyrt feels that opportunity be given to the respondents 4 and 5 to represent their case.
When the companypetent authorities after enquiry found that regularisation can be made, it is the duty of the companycerned authorities, at the time of passing the impugned Memo to take numbere of the recommendations made by the companypetent authorities.
13.4.1987.
In companypliance of the direction given by the High Court, the State Government re considered the appellants plea for regularization of lease, gave opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed order dated 31.1.1992, paragraphs 13 and 14 of which read as under As regards the claim of Dr. Mrs. Usha Mehta, the Government observe that the grant of lease in favour of her is unauthorised that the entire transaction is the result of fraud and companylusion between her and Sri Venkata Rao, the then Inspecor of Estate Officer, Secunderabad that any claim based on forged document should number be accepted much less acted upon and that Sri R.D. Bhoopal, Sri K.P.Rao and Dr. Usha Mehta have numberlocus standi to claim the land.
The companytention of the petitioner that the Government has passed the order without applying its mind and without taking numbere of the recommendations of the companypetent authorities, has some force.
Since respondents 4 and 5 are claim rights over the property, this companyrt is number prepared to investigate into these facts.
The relevant portions of that order are reproduced below A reading of the impugned memo which has been extracted above, does number show whether the Government has companysidered the regularisation of the lease on the altered circumstances and companyditions as suggested by the two authorities.
/6/151 Dt.
Government have carefully examined the representation of Dr. Mrs. Usha Mehta 1st cited in companysultation with the Collector, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Land Revenue.
30.9.86.
Ref 1.
From the E.O., Secunderabad and Collector, Hyderabad, Lr.
From the C.L.R., Lr.
They companysider that the original lease deed itself was number issued by an authority companypetent to issue and the said document is reported to be a forged one, and that the mere fact that the lease amount and property tax were paid would number make a forged lease document a valid one, and hence, any claim based on such a document cannot and should number be accepted, much less acted upon.
Thereupon, the appellant approached District Collector and other functionaries of the Government, who recommended regularization of the lease.
From Dr. Mrs. Usha Mehta rep.
Collector, Hyderabad letter No.
DRO/17/87 dt.
BB4/688/87 dt.19.5.87.
yards in favour of Dr.Mrs.Usha Mehta Reg.
NIL received on 13.9.1986.
Mr. Venkatanarayana, learned senior companynsel appearing for the State seeks time to clarify all these, issues by filing an additional affidavit, List these matters after four weeks.
A true photocopy of the said letter dated 2.2.2012 of the executive Engineer, PD II, GHMC, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is annexed hereto as Annexure VII.
yards was upheld.
TOTAL 51 II In 45 cases Land Grabbing cases were filed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad.
The stay granted in the Government memo 2nd cited is hereby vacated.
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as the original lease was genuine and Conveyance Deed number yet executed due to pendency of Civil Dispute in Court Annexure XVIII TOTAL 45 III Leases number companyered by encroachments and kept 3 vacant required for road widening etc and number regularized.
