Petitioners challenged a report suggesting that Government could claim the property via adverse possession. The Court held that admissibility does not bar owners from proving title and disposed of the writ, leaving status quo.
Writ petition dismissed in status quo. Government cannot dispossess owners based on admissibility of adverse possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
W.P. No. 3668 of 2005
O R D E R:
This writ petition is directed against the report made by 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer dated 5.3.2002 in his File No. 668/2001 (c) dated 5.3.2002, whereunder, while considering as to the nature of property in T.S. No.1550/8, Ward No.10, KKathepu street (two-storeyed building) measuring 2400 Sq. yards, it was held that the property does not fall under the ambit of A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974. It was further held that the petitioners are legal heirs of one Moosa Hajee Abdullah, namely, Iqbalur Rahman Amina and also Ahmaduddunisa Begum @ Sultana as per the recorded evidence and there was no controversy from any quarter that the schedule property does not belong to Moosa Haji Abdullah and Iqbalur Rahman Amina Mossa etc. and the petitioners are not the legal heirs of Moosa Hajee Abdullah and that it is also a fact that the property was in possession of different Departments from 1960 to 1998. However, while holding so, it was further held at the penultimate paragraph of the report as under:
“It is an admitted fact by one all that the schedule property was in possession of the Government through different departments from the last 30 years. It is also an admitted law that due to adverse possession the rightful owners looses their title and the occupant acquires right. After 30 years, different individuals claiming themselves as owners. Their claims may be put to strict proof of law particularly when the schedule property was in uninterrupted possession of the Government from the last 30 years and now also it is continued to be under possession of the Government. If the persons who are claiming interest as the real owners, they are at liberty to take legal recourse for resumption of the land and at that time the Government may also contest its
case in the legal concept of adverse possession. Till then status quo as on today be maintained”. Aggrieved as to the finding recorded in the penultimate paragraph of the said order, this writ petition is filed.
Even according to the report submitted by 2nd respondent dated 5.3.2002, petitioners are the legal heirs of Moosa Hajee Abdullah/Iqbalur Rahman Amina Moosa and Ahmaduddunisa Begum alias Sultana and they are the owners of the said property of 2400 Sq. yards located in T.S.No. 1550/8, Ward No.10, Kathepu street, Eluru Town. 2nd respondent, while sending report to 1st respondent – Collector, had indicated that the property does not fall within the definition of the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 and the Government cannot lay its hand on the schedule property without proper law coverage, but stated that the claims are put to strict proof of law particularly when the schedule property was in uninterrupted possession of the Government from the last 30 years and now also it is continued to be under possession of the Government. If the petitioners are claiming interest as the real owners, they are at liberty to take legal recourse for resumption of the land and at that time Government may also contest its case in the legal concept of adverse possession.
As could be seen, it is only a report sent by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent. No further action has been initiated till date. While admitting the writ petition, status quo as on that date i.e. 28.2.2005 was granted, which is subsisting as of today.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government was never in possession of the property. The Government was a tenant of this premises from 1970 to 1998 and thereafter petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same as true owners. Therefore, the question of petitioners going to the Court for establishing their right does not arise. Admittedly, the Government was
only a tenant and it was paying rents to petitioners. However, it is the case of respondents that the issue started by the Women and Child Welfare Department, Eluru under the impression that the schedule property was taken possession of by the Government as there are no legal heirs to the subject property and it was under their departmental possession up to 1998 and after its vacation, it was trespassed by outsiders and therefore a complaint was made to the Collector. On the instruction of higher authorities the Mandal Revenue Officer, Eluru, presuming it as Government property, curtailed interference with the property by M.E. Rahman, Power of Attorney of Iqbalur Rahman and made police complaint. On hearing from the police that the complaint is not maintainable as the matter is of civil nature, he submitted to declare the land under the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act 1974 stating that there are no legal heirs to the property. However, 2nd respondent observed that there is a strong case in favour of legal heirs of Moosa Hajee Abdullah, namely, Iqbalur Rahman Amina Moosa and also Ahmaduddunisa Begum alias Sultana with recorded evidence. There is no contrary evidence from any quarter that the schedule property does not belong to Moosa Hajee Abdullah and Iqbalur Rahman Amina Moosa etc. and they are not the legal heirs of Moosa Hajee Abdullah. 2nd respondent further held that the subject property does not fall under the ambit of A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act and the Government cannot lay its hand on the schedule property without proper law coverage. While holding so, 2nd respondent held that if the petitioners are claiming interest as the real owners, they are at liberty to take legal recourse for resumption of the land. This approach made by the respondents seems to be not correct. If there is no dispute that the subject land and the building thereon belong to Moosa Hajee Abdullah and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Moosa Hajee Abdullah, even if it is not Escheats property, they
are entitled for possession of the same and in fact they are in possession of the subject property as of today. May be, Government was in possession of the said land between 1970 and 1998, but it cannot direct petitioners to go before the civil Court and workout their remedies or else they would be dispossessed. Such a course is not expected from the respondents. However, in any case the Government claims that the subject property comes under A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974, the only course left open to the Government is to invoke Section 8 of the said Act and get the suit decreed in their favour and get possession, as per law. The contention of the Government that they were in possession of the subject property between 1970 and 1998, therefore, it must be deemed that they are in adverse possession, cannot be accepted.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order
as to costs.
JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.
Date: 24-12-2010.
MVB.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether admissibility of report under A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act bars petitioners from establishing ownership via civil court.
Whether Government can claim adverse possession despite petitioners being in possession after 1998.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Legal heirs of Moosa Hajee Abdullah
Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru
Collector, Eluru
C.V. Ramulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
