Allowed

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023WP/35511/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the respondents' claim to Government land based solely on Town Survey Land Register entries. Holding that entries are not conclusive proof of title, the Court quashed administrative memos directing the petitioner to hand over disputed land as arbitrary, illegal, and infringing the Right to Property, urging any title dispute to be resolved in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memos dated 09.07.2012 and 10.09.2012 were set aside as illegal and arbitrary.

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35511 OF 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, N e. 9-2-79, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND'1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue Writ of Certiorari declaring the memo issued by the 2nd Respondent in file No. E21511912012, Dated 09- 07-2012 and the consequential Memo dated 10-09-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principals of the natural^justice.

l.A. NO: 10F 2013

P. NO: 2652 OF 2013)

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad,

¶21

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶22

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad.

¶23

The Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, N e. 9-2-7 9, Champapet, trOi.lf3"oDENTs

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} vacate the interim orders^passed in W.P.M.P.No.45129 ol 2012 in^W.P.No.35511 of 2012 dated 09.11.2012.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A PULLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

-3

¶30

I !

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.NO.355110F 20L2

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ f)etition is llled questioning tl-re Memo No.E2l51 19 /201t, dated 09.07.2Ot2 and. 10.09.2012 issuer.l by respondent i\ o.2, as illegal and arbitrary and seeking consequential clirection to set aside the same.

¶34

Through the impugr-rr:d memos, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to hancJover the possession of 2g2.OO Sq. Mtrs of land purported to be the land belonging to Government basing upon the cntries made in the Town Survey Land Records, urhile considerir-rg the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of No Olrjection Certificate (NOC) for a total extent of 210C Sq. yards of land bearing premises No.17_1382/SN/63 of Said.abad Village.

¶35

The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein claims to be the abs;olute owner and possessor of lands situated in Sy.Nos.174, 175, 176 and. 1U1 of Champapet Village, having succeeded to the sarne from his ancestors under a memorandum of or,l1 partition clated 10.09.1975. In the said partition, the petiti,:ner claims 1o have succeeded to a total

¶36

¶37

M5K,] wP 35511²⁰¹²

¶38

extent of^{Ac.S- 14 guntas situated inthc above mentioned} survey numbers.^{The subject property admeasuring2i00 Sq'} yards is stated to^{be the land situated irrSy No' iB Iof} Champapet^{Village, and petitioner claimed to have succeededto} be the said extent^{of 2100 Sq' yards, in the said partition'} Later, he approached^{respondentNo 2 for grant of No Objection} Certificate for^{the purpose of developingthe said extentof land'}

¶39

Respondent No.2^{while consideringthe said request of} the petitioner for^{grant of No Objection Certificate,issued the} impugned memos on^{the groundthat out of 2100 Sq' yards of} land being claimed^{by the petitioner, an extent of 282 Sq'} Meters belonging to the^{Governmentand as per the TSLR, the} said extent of land^{admeasuring282 Sq. Meters is shownas} GVM Passage. As the^{petitioner failed to hand over the said} extent of land to the^{respondents, the respondents claimedto} have taken over^{possessionof sameby conducting panchnama'}

¶40

Aggrieved by such action^{of respondent No.2 in issuing} the impugned memos,^{the petitioner approachedthis Court by} filing the present Writ^{Petition contendingthat the petitioner} has been in possession and^{enjoymentof the entire extent of} 2l0O Sq. yards for the past more than^{45 years and the sameis}

¶41

¶42

MSK,J wP 35511 2012

¶43

also statecl to l;r, cor.r'red b.r a compound wall ,"r.ith a godou,n constrncted the rr'r n.

¶44

The respondents filecl counter affidavit contending that after having co.-rsidered thc application submitted by the petitioner lor gra rt of No Ob.lection Certificate ancl after having verified the TSLR. it has come to their notice that an extent of 282 Sq. meters c,f lancl clairr-red by the petitioner to be in his possession and r,njoyment falls in TS.No.7, Block - tr, Ward No. 172 of Saidabad Village and Mandal and that the same is classified as "G/1,{ Passage" in coh_rmn No.2O TSLR. In so far as the remaining extent of land being claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted that the same is patta land. From the perusal of th e coun ter affidavit, it is noticed that the basis for claiming the said extent of 282 Sq. Meters as the land belonging to the^,Sovernment or GVM Passage is the entries made in the TSLR The petitioner while frling the Writ petition also filed true exrract of TSLR pertaining to survey No. 1g 1 corresponding to 1'S.No.7 whi<:h also covers the land, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

¶45

7 From the perusal of the Town Survey Land Register filed along with \Vrit Petition, it is noticed that the entry

¶46

I ,

¶47

¶48

wP 35511 pertaining to the^{subject land i.e., TS.No.7 coversa total extent} of Ac.3-36^{guntas and the grandfather of the petitioner herein} was shown in Column^{No.10 as well as ColumnNo 2O i'e', the} name of the registered^{holder and name of the present enjoyer} respectively. But^{the nameof the petitioner's grandfather\ ras} rounded of in Column^{No.20 and the entry was made as GVM} Passage.

¶49

The contents of the said Town^{Survey Lald Register} are not disputed in the^{counteraflidavit by the respondents.} The basis for altering the^{entriesmade in the column No.20 in} Town Survey Land Register are^{not mentioned and alsothe} authority basing upon^{which such entry was altered was also} not indicated. However, in the^{remarks column,itis} mentioned as Donka.^Even in^{the TownSurveyLandRegister} filed along with counter affidavit also,^{the name ofthe} registered owner was mentioned^{as Manda Balaiahwho is the} grandfather of the petitioner herein. But^{from the overall} examination of the Town^{Survey Land Register, it appearsthat} the grandfather of the^{petitionerwasshownas registeredowner} of the entire land in TS.No.7. But, on^{ground thereexistsa} passage through the patta land of the petitioner's^grandfather.

¶50

¶51

M SK,J wP 35511 2012

¶52

Even assuming t hat the cntrrt's made in the TSLI? rvith regard to possession of thc sr-rbjcct l:utcl are the correct, at the most, it can be said that .r portion of tlre land claimed by the petitioner is being used as :r passaE{e or rlrtnka. But mere uszrge of a patta land belongirrg 1o a privatc inclividual as a passage can under no circumstanct:s have the aflt'ct of divesting the title of the actual owner. It is not the r:itse of the respondents that the subject land adme.asuring 282 Sq. Meters standing in the name of the petitioner's grandfather u.as acquired by the respondents at any point of time either lor the purpose of passage or otherwise. The entire basis for the respondents to claim the subject iand admeasuring 282 Sq. Meters as Government land is the entry made in the Tou.rr Survey Register. There is no basis for rounding of the namc of the petitioner's grandfather and for entering the entry shou'ing the subject land as GVM passage. It is settled law thal the mere entry in Town Survey Land Register will not have thc cllect of conferring title or effect of divesting the title of any p(rrson or body if the title is otherwise vested ir': such person or body. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to a judgmr:nt of this Court in the Case of Hgderabad Potteries Pttt Ltd Vs. Collector, Hgderabad.

¶53

¶54

re ;fr \ MsK,.l -{'. wP 35511 2012

¶55

Districtt r.r,herein^{the learnedsingle Judge of this Court hcldas}

¶56

under: -

¶57

'lt is thus clear that an entry in TSLR itself cannot be the co[rclusive^proof of title or^{lack of it, and the} decision either to^grant or refuse^{permission cannot} be taken solely on the basis of an^{entry made in the} TSLR. It may be one of the factors^{that may have to be} taken into consideration along with^{the other material} available on record. An entry made in^{TSLR per se} could not create any doubt or cloud on the^right,title and interest of a^person in respect^{of any land."}

¶58

9 This aspcct of the matter is also considered^{by a learned}

¶59

Single Judge of this Court in the^case of^{B.N.MangaDeviw.}

¶60

State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it^was held^{as under:-}

¶61

"Now, it is put beyond any pale of doubt by this Court that entries contained in Town Survey^Land Record cannot be the fountainhead for doubting the right, title and interest of any person in respect of any land. In spite of this clear^{pronouncement,} I am not surprised in the least that the State Governrnent, in its Revenue Establishrnent, is still raising the very same contentions, based upon the entries in the Town Survey Land Record, which did not find favour with this Court."

¶62

In the light of the law laid down by this Court on the aspect of the value that can be attached to the entries made in the Town Survey Land Register, the impugned memos issued by respondent No.2 requiring the petitioner to handover 282 Sq. Meters of land situated in TS.No.7, Block-E, Ward No. 172 of

¶63

2ool^(ll al"o⁶⁰⁰ 2011^{(51ALr 34}

¶64

¶65

MSK,J wP 35511 2012

¶66

Saidabad Villagc is totall-t Lr n knor.r,n to law and from the very act of requiring the pctition(.r- to handover the said extent of land, supposes rhat peution(.r- has been in possession of t1-re said extent of lzrrLd. Accorclini_:. ro the petitioner, he has been in possession and e njovment ol- t tte said extent for the past more than 45 years.

¶67

1O. In view of the s:rlc, under no circumstances, respondent No.2 is enrirled ro require the petitioner to hand over the subject and as a conclition for granting No Objection Certificate in resl;ect of remzrirring extent of land. As already noted above, the very basis li>r respondent No.2 to issue the impugned memos, is the entr-ies that are made rn the Town Survey Land Register. As alreact), pointed above, in the light of the settled law in this regard, the very basis on which respondent No.2 Llid a claim or cr the subject land and treated the same as Government land is totally unfounded and totally unsustainable uni er law,.

¶68

1 1. Even otht:rwise, in case the Government has got any claim over the subject land, it is for the Government to work out its remedies in accord:rnce rvith law and in the instant case, no such remedies are availed by- the respondents, but a

¶69

M5K,J wP 35511 2012 ^.

¶70

straightau'ay,^{the impugnedmemos are issued concluding that} the subject land^{belongs to the Governmentand requesting the} petitioner to hand^{over the same to the Government.Suchan} action on the^{part of the respondentsis wholly unsustainable} and arbitrary.^{The Right to property is a constitutional right} guaranteed under^{Article3OOA of the Constitution of India} which is also^read in^{to Article21 of the Constitutionof India by} the Hon'ble^{Apex Court in the recent past.}

¶71

Hence, it is not^{openfor the respondentsto deprivea} citizen of its Right^{to Property in a mechanical and casual} manner. In the light of^{the claim of the petitionerthat he has} succeeded to the subject^{propertyin a oral partitionthat took} place in the year 1975 which was^a-lso said to have^been reduced into writing^{as early as on 10.09.1975 coupled with the} fact that the^{name of the petitioner's grSndfather was shown as} registered title holder in^respect of the^land in^TS.No.7 corresponding Sy. No.181 of^{Champapet Village,} any^{claim of} the respondents over the subject land can only^{be pursued by} approaching the common law Court and by establishing its title over the subject land.

MSK,J wP 35511 2012

The cltrim of the responclents that they have taken over th e possessiorr of 2,9,2 Srluarc ,yards br conducting panchanama, thr. same uas sJrecrfically denied bv the petitioner by filing a repl1. .ffida'it. Flrr-lher, the petitioner categorically asserted that he is still in possession of the sublect land and also filed photogrrrphs along u,ith reply affidavit. In spite of the same no material is placed orr record by the respondents to show that they have takcn :rcLual possession ol the subject property.

¶76

In the Lght of the zLbove impugned Memos dated 09.O7.2012 and 10.09.2012 ar.c rvholly unsustainable, arbitrary, and illegal. Accorclingly, they. are set aside and the Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orcler as to costs

¶77

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶78

closed.

¶79

To,

¶80

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REG]STRAR //TRUE COPY// C* SECTION OFFICER

¶81

] i::.J,ffii'fJ,,!fl!i,"Hfi;,53J;nue Department' state or Andhra Pradesh, 3. z The Revenue rhe District coilector. Divis,onat'off[;,: Hyde-rabad District, H;;;r;;;r chirag rrr qv Ari ^rr Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. 4. The T-ahsitdar, Saidabad HllanOil, il;";6;;

¶82

3 IOUTl?,ls BBI",:%A ?BtiE;pflllal;*i'iinufl ,n" State or re,angana 7. Two CD Copies BSK cJP \F2-

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 610612023

ORDER

WP.No.35511 of 2012

tHF- S14 16.
( o B o.
+
o
!)
1ll JUL Z0a
c,
t *
t.j ( ,
\r - , ".1''