1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5441 OF 2015

AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS.          Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

GOVT.OF A.P. & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF 2015

DR. GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.          Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

M/S ANDHRA PRABHA PUBLICATION & ORS. ETC. ETC.   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5441 OF 2015: 1) In  view  of  the  judgment  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos. 5439-5440/2015 dated 09.08.2017, nothing survives in this appeal. 2) The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF 2015:

3) The controversy in the present appeals centers around a piece  of  land  ad-measuring  6205  sq.  mts.  in  Survey  No.

2

129/45/D in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.  The appellants before this Court claim their title from a compromise decree dated 30.08.1961 followed by a Sale Deed dated 16.07.1962 to their predecessors. 4) On  09.08.2017,  this  Court  had  rejected  all  appeals concerning Survey No. 403 part in T.S. No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad.  The present appeals are from an order of the Division Bench of 16.03.2011 upsetting a single Judge Bench order of 03.12.2008. 5) Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf  of  the  appellants  has  argued  before  us  that, unfortunately  for  him,  despite  the  fact  that  qua his  land which  had  been  the  subject-matter  of  urban  land  ceiling proceedings, all findings were in his favour, yet the Division Bench has upset the single Judge order by somehow linking him with persons who have been held by us as land grabbers in Survey  No.  403  part  in  T.S.  No.19/P,  Block-K,  Ward  No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad.  In fact, according to him, in his case the only  question  that  really  arose  in  the  urban  land  ceiling proceedings was as to whether one Mohd. Taqiuddin happened to be a person against whom orders were passed under the Evacuee Act.  According to the learned Senior Counsel, once this was concurrently rejected by both single Judge and Division Bench, nothing remained in his case except to follow the directions of the single Judge.

3

6) Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has very fairly taken the stand that he is only concerned with Survey No. 403 part in T.S. No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad and not with Survey No. 129/45/D.  According to the learned Senior Counsel, if the appellants have lost possession at some point down the line, this Court should refrain from going into the said aspect, but may otherwise clarify the position.   7) Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Andhra Prabha Publications, has also contended that the allotment  made  in  his  favour  by  a  Government  Order  dated 19.08.2005  should  not  be  disturbed  inasmuch  as  it  has reference  only  to  Survey  No.  403  part  in  T.S.  No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad. 8) Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the parties, we are of the view that the controversy now lies in  a  very  narrow  compass.   One  thing  is  clear  that  the appellants title to the land in Survey No. 129/45/D is clearly traceable to a compromise decree of 30.08.1961 pursuant to which a sale deed was entered into on 16.07.1962 in favour of one  Mercy  Sona  Bai  Chellappa,  who  is  the  mother  of  the appellants before us.  Also by a memorandum dated 06.12.1967, the  Andhra  Pradesh  Government  has  recommended  that supplementary sethwars be issued in the revenue records in respect of 41 cases, one of which comprises the land belonging

4

to the appellants.    9) It is not necessary to refer in detail to the urban land ceiling proceedings, except to state that those proceedings were  taken  by  the  Urban  Land  Ceiling  Authorities,  which culminated in the repeal Act of 1999 being applied to the lands belonging to the appellants.  Somehow, in the course of those proceedings, the name of another gentleman called Syed Taqiuddin  was  brought  up,  which  led  to  confusion  and allegations made against the appellants that their property had  already  been  dealt  with  in  evacuee  proceedings. Ultimately, both the single Judge and the Division Bench have held in favour of the appellants on this specific count and have stated that the Survey No. owned by the appellants is not concerned with any evacuee proceedings.  This being the case, the single Judge ultimately held:

From  the  discussion  undertaken  above,  the inevitable conclusion that would emerge is that the lands covered by this batch of writ petitions except  WP.No.6668  of  2006  are  not  liable  for allotment to third parties including the Andhra Prabha  Publications  until  and  unless  it  is conclusively  held  by  the  competent  forum  that these lands belong to and vested in the State Government.  As the respondents failed to come out with a definite stand as to whether the lands over which petitioners in these writ petitions have interest are included in the extent of 8,000 square  metres  of  land  allotted  to  the  Andhra Prabha Publications or not, it is necessary in the  interests  of  justice  that  the  respondents

5

shall get the survey conducted by the competent authority.  If it emerges in such survey that the land claimed by the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions except WP.No.6668 of 2006 forms part of the land allotted to the Andhra Prabha Publications, the same shall stand excluded from the  land  allotted  to  the  said  publications. After exclusion of such land, if any part of the land remains from out of the said extent of 8,000 square metres, the State Government shall be free to allot such remaining land to the Andhra Prabha Publications.  The District Collector, Hyderabad shall cause the survey conducted  in the presence of the representatives of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions except WP.No.6668 of 2006 and communicate the survey result to them.  If the  petitioners  feel  aggrieved  by  such  survey results, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedies available to them in law.   

10) Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not keep the two Survey  Nos.,  namely  Survey  No.  403  part  in  T.S.  No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet  Village  and  Mandal,  Hyderabad,  and  Survey  No. 129/45/D, apart while deciding the appeal before it.  Inasmuch as confusion therefore arose as to the appellants, who do not have any land in Survey No. 403 part in T.S. No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, the Division Bench went on to hold that all the appeals before it would be allowed and the single Judge order was therefore set aside.

6

11) According to us, it is clear that the Division Bench is in  error  in  mixing  up  the  two  properties.   We  have  been informed by both Mr. Vaidyanathan and Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel  that  possession  has  been  given  pursuant  to  the Government  Order  dated  19.08.2005  to  Andhra  Prabha Publications of 8000 sq. mts. entirely from Survey No. 403 part in T.S. No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad. 12) This being the case, it is clear that the lands belonging to  the  appellants  contained  in  Survey  No.  129/45/D  have nothing whatever to do with the lands comprised in Survey No. 403 part in T.S. No.19/P, Block-K, Ward No.12, situated at Road  No.12,  Banjara  Hills,  Shaikpet  Village  and  Mandal, Hyderabad. 13) Accordingly,  we  set  aside  the  order  of  the  Division Bench. The directions contained in the order of the single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 18353 of 2006 and 26478 of 2006 are restored. 14) The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.      

.......................... J.       (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

.......................... J.           (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

New Delhi; August 16, 2017.