Kakatiya Enclaves Pvt.Ltd. vs. The District Collector

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 7255 and 7698 of 2008

Common Order:

Both these writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioners. The petitioners claim that their predecessors-in-title owned an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 in Poppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That they purchased an extent of Ac.11-37 guntas from them under registered sale deeds in the month of June 2005, and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and that their names were also mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 05.01.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal. They state that when some persons tried to interfere with their possession they filed suits in O.S. Nos. 2762 and 2763 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained interim injunction on 10.04.2007. They state that on further enquiry they came to know that the Government had allotted house sites to IAS, IPS and IFS Officers in Survey No.149 of Nanakramguda, Sherlingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the land owned by the petitioners is situated adjacent to the land allotted to the said officers, the officers are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land owned by them as the land allotted to them appears to be insufficient. Hence, the petitioners filed W.P. No.7255 of 2008 praying for the following relief:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Survey No.452/2, admeasuring Ac.11-37 guntas in Poppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the

respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands bearing Survey No.452/2, admeasuring Ac.11-37 guntas in Poppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District."

On 02.04.2008, this Court, while ordering notice before

admission, passed the following order:

"Notice before admission.

The petitioners assert that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land of an extent of Ac.11-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2, situated in Poppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. Some extent of land in S.No.149 situated in Nanakramguda village, adjacent to the land in S.No.452/2 is allotted to the Civil Servants (IAS, IPS and IFS Officers) for house sites. Now, the petitioners grievance is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the guise of conducting survey, are trying to remove the fencing around their land and dispossess them from it.

The learned Government pleader for Revenue submits that they are conducting survey tomorrow and they are not dispossessing the petitioners.

If that be so, the respondents may go ahead with the survey of the land in accordance with law and submit their report within one week from today. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question."

While the said writ petition is pending, the petitioners on 08.04.2008 questioning the inaction of the respondents in not conducting survey, demarcating and fixing the boundaries despite their several representations along with requisite fee, filed W.P. No.7698 of 2008 seeking the following relief:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not fixing the boundary stones of the land admeasuring Ac.15-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Poppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to fix the boundary stones of the land admeasuring Ac.15-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Poppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District."

On 09.04.2008, this Court passed the following order in the said

writ petition.

"It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that survey and demarcation of the land in Survey No.452/2, Puppallaguda

village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is being conducted including today. The petitioners grievance is as regards the non-conduct of the survey.

In view of the statement on behalf of the respondents through the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, list next week."

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on three occasions. On 25.04.2008, it was represented by the learned Government Pleader that the respondents had already fixed the boundary stones demarcating the land in an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Puppallaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, and that boundaries were drawn between the said land and the land in Sy.No.149 of Nanakramguda village, Sherlingampalli Mandal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the same. In those circumstances, this Court passed the following order:

"It is appropriate to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner suggested by both the parties to observe whether the boundary stones are fixed as stated by the learned Govt. Pleader."

While so, some third parties filed W.P.M.P. No. 12519 of 2008 seeking to get themselves impleaded as party respondent Nos. 8 to 13 in W.P. No. 7255 of 2008. The General Power of Attorney representing them in the affidavit filed in support of the petition stated that the proposed respondents are the legal heirs of one late Sri B.J. Satyanarayana Singh, who had sold the land in question in an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village, under registered sale deed dated 14.06.1965. That earlier one M/s. Jaihind Green Fields sought mutation of their name in the revenue records stating that they purchased the same from the legal heirs of Singadasari Venkaiah under registered sale deed dated 21.04.1997, and similar request was also made by the alleged legal heirs of the original owner, but the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the said request, vide orders dated 28.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioners herein preferred appeal before the Joint Collector, who vide orders dated 23.09.2005 dismissed the same holding that there are disputes with respect to inheritance and succession of the property and that the relief claimed by them is beyond the scope and power of the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 24042 of 2005, but the same, vide order dated 10.11.2005, was dismissed. Though the petitioners claimed ownership under registered sale deeds dated 21.04.1997, however, they sought mutation of their names on the strength of registered sale deeds dated 13.06.2005 and 16.06.2005. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer despite being aware of the fact that earlier the Joint Collector directed the parties to approach the Civil Court, yet vide proceedings dated 05.01.2006 effected mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. The petitioners suppressing all these facts have filed the writ petitions. They contended that since the proposed respondents are denying title of the petitioners and claiming their title on the basis of sale deed executed on 14.06.1965, which is much subsequent to the sale deeds of the petitioners, they are proper and necessary parties to the writ petition and prayed that they be impleaded as party respondents.

On 28.04.2008, this Court, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents and the learned counsel for the proposed implead respondents, and considering the stand taken by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, in the affidavit filed enclosing the sketch and panchanama, and the no objection expressed by the proposed implead respondents, with respect to conduct and survey of the land under the supervision of an Advocate-Commissioner, this Court passed the following order:

"Since all the counsel have agreed for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to supervise the survey and fixation of the boundaries by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, of the land of the petitioners and the land of the respondents, this Court directs as follows.

Mr. Krishna Reddy Mulugu, Advocate, H.No.2-3-18/50, Golnaka, Tulasinagar, Hyderabad – 500 013, is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to supervise the survey of the land claimed by the petitioners and the Government as also the fixation of the boundary stones thereto by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, and submit his report to this Court.

The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, shall identify and survey the land claimed by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Sy.No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the land of the Government situated in Sy.No.149 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, said to have been allotted to the members of IAS, IPS and IFS Officers, for the purpose of house sites, and shall fix the boundary stones thereto.

The Advocate Commissioner shall in consultation with the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, fix a date for the survey of the land of the petitioners and the Government, and after fixing the date, he shall issue notices to the petitioners as also to the respondents, requiring to make themselves available for the survey, and accordingly, supervise the identification and survey of the land of the petitioners as also of the Government, and fixation of boundary stones, by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, and submit his report to the Court.

The fee of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), which shall be paid by the petitioners.

List after summer vacation.

Insofar as the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7698 of 2008 that the respondents be directed to dispose of the representation dated 26.04.2008 said to have been made by them for demarcation and sub-division of the land in an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Sy.No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village is concerned, it is to be observed that the petitioners have made the said representation just a few days back, and it is too premature to say that the respondents would not consider their request. However, it is open to the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law."

The Advocate-Commissioner, having supervised the conduct of survey, conducted on 31.05.2008, by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, filed his report on

07.07.2008, enclosing copy of the survey report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District and the sketch prepared by him.

The proposed respondents filed their objections to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner stating that they submitted letter dated 21.05.2008 on 22.05.2008 bringing to the notice of the Assistant Director of Sruvey and Land Records that the land in an extent of Ac.4- 00 was already surveyed and site map was also issued and orders of mutation were also passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that the Advocate representing them had also submitted a memo dated 31.05.2008 to that effect, but the Advocate Commissioner refused to receive the said memo stating that there was no direction by the Hon'ble Court to receive any memo. He further contended that this Court did not accede to the request of the petitioners for sub-division, but on the instructions of the Advocate-Commissioner, the Assistant Director had sub-divided the land in an extent of Ac.4-00, Ac.3-37 guntas and Ac.8-00 in Survey No.452/2, and therefore, this Court should not take note of the sub-division. He further contended that the sub-division and earmarking of Ac.4-00 out of Ac.15-37 guntas made by the Assistant Director is in deviation of the earlier survey and site map and the mutation proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

After this, the learned Advocate-General entered his appearance on behalf of the official respondents.

The counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the learned Advocate-General submitted that the survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, under the supervision of the Advocate-Commissioner, appointed by this Court, is correct. They submitted that

the Assistant Director having surveyed the land in an extent of Ac.15- 37 guntas, demarcated it and also fixed the boundary stones and thereafter handed over the physical possession thereof. The learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos. 8 to 13 while accepting the said statement, expressed his objection to the sub-division effected in respect of an extent of Ac.4-00 out of an extent of Ac.15.37 guntas by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, stating that such sub-division was beyond the scope of the warrant issued to the Advocate-Commissioner and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the learned Advocate-General for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.8 to 13, and also perused the reports submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records along with maps.

Admittedly, this Court, by order dated 28.04.2008, appointed the Advocate-Commissioner only with a direction to supervise the identification and survey of the land in an extent of Acs. 15-37 guntas in Sy. No. 452/2 of Poppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, and fixation of the boundaries, and submit his report to the Court. This Court, in fact, has not granted any direction for subdivision of the land in an extent of Ac.4-00 in Survey No.452/2. However, as evident from the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, he effected sub-division on the advise of the Advocate-Commissioner. The counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.8 to 13 states that though they brought to the notice of the Advocate-Commissioner by way of a memo stating that there is no

direction for effecting sub-division, it is his grievance that the Advocate-Commissioner refused to take the said memo and instead advised the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to effect sub-division. Since there was no direction by this Court for effecting sub-division, the report of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to the extent of effecting sub-division in an extent of Ac.4-00 out of Ac.15-37 guntas in Sy.No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village, cannot be acted upon, because the same is beyond the scope of the warrant.

In the circumstances, all the parties to the writ petition having accepted the survey to be correct, expressed no objection and agreed for closure of the writ petitions with the following directions:

The survey report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to the extent of surveying the land in an extent of Ac.15-37 guntas in Sy.No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village, and fixation of boundaries thereto, is upheld. However, the report to the extent of effecting sub-division in an extent of Ac.4-00 out of Ac.15-37 guntas, in Sy.No.452/2 of Poppalaguda village, stands rejected, and it shall not be acted upon. It is made clear that this Court cannot be understood to have adjudicated the title of the petitioners and the unofficial proposed implead respondent. No costs.

N.V. RAMANA, J.

_____ ____________

Date: 22 nd October 2008 KSR