WP/14373/1997 of Jangam Balwanth Reddy, Vs State of A.P., on 29 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

1. The four writ petitioners who have instituted the above writ petitionsought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in treating the landin Survey No.266/1 of an extent of Ac.7.35 guntas bearing MunicipalNos. 19-4-1/69 to 19-4-1/71 and 19-4-1/68/1 to 19-4-1/68/24 situated atFalaknuma, Bandlaguda village, Hyderabad as an excess land held by thethen H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad and allotting the same to rehabilitate theevacuees of the Musi river bed without any notice to the petitioners asarbitrary and illegal.

2. The writ petitioners assert that they are the owners of certain plots ofland over which several buildings have been got constructed by them inBandlaguda village and that the entire extent of Ac.7.35 guntas of landsituated in Survey No.266/1 was part of an Inam and that the petitioners 1and 2 were granted the occupancy rights certificate by the RevenueDivisional Officer in terms of Section 10 of the A.P.(Telangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore, they have everyright to continue their occupation on the said land. The writ petitioners havealso pointed out that when a notification under Section 10 (1) and Section10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the UrbanLand Ceiling Act) has been got published on 23.02.1983 declaring the extentof Ac.7.35 guntas as an excess land of the Prince Mir Mukharam Jah NawabMir Barkath Ali Khan Bahadur, the H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad, thepetitioners have instituted W.P.No.2731 of 1983 before this court and that aDivision Bench of this court had allowed their writ petition. Notwithstanding the same when the Urban Land Ceiling Authority have proceeded with thematter exparte and once again passed final orders, they have institutedW.P.No.12535 of 1993 in this court. Therefore, the writ petitioners havesolicited the aforementioned relief of declaration.

3. The Special Deputy Collector, Incharge of Land Protection in theCollectrate at Hyderabad has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It has been asserted that on behalf of the Nizam of Hyderabad, his G.P.A.has filed a statement in Form 1 under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land CeilingAct declaring various properties held by him and situated within theHyderabad Urban agglomeration. It is also asserted that after due enquiry afinal statement under Section 9 of the said Act has been published declaringthe said Nizam of Hyderabad as holding an excess land of 22,01,537.56square metres of area which included 8,37,077.80 square metres of landsituated at Falaknuma Palace. It is therefore, asserted that the land situatedin Survey No.266/1 of Bandlaguda village including the land of Ac.7.35guntas said to be owned by the petitioners herein forms part of theaforementioned adjudicatory process carried out in terms of Urban LandCeiling Act. While dealing with the occupancy rights certificate said to havebeen granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad on 11.03.1982 infavour of the petitioners 1 and 2, it has been specifically asserted that the writpetitioners have obtained the said occupancy rights certificate fraudulentlyand it has also been asserted as to how the Nizam of the erstwhileHyderabad State being it’s Ruler cannot be defined as an Inamdar andhence the grant of occupancy rights certificate in favour of the petitioners 1and 2 is fraught with patent illegality and is a fraudulent transaction.

4. Be that as it may, the Writ Petition No.12535 of 1993 has beeninstituted by 8 petitioners of which the petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the firstand second petitioners therein. The 4[th] petitioner herein is the 8[th] petitionertherein. They have solicited a declaration that Ac.100-00 of land owned by them and situated in Survey No.266/1 of Bandlaguda village which is outsidethe compound wall of Falaknuma Palace, Hyderabad, West Division, is notliable to be treated as excess vacant land in terms of provisions contained inthe Urban Land Ceiling Act and for quashing the proceedings of thecompetent authority under the said Act for declaring the same as excessvacant land. One of the specific pleas that has been urged was that thepetitioners were granted occupancy rights certificate over the land under theprovisions of the Act and hence they could not have been computed withinthe holding of the Nizam of Hyderabad and on that basis declare the same asexcess vacant land. This court had considered the said issue and found thatthe entire land belongs to the then Nizam and that it could not constitute inany way an Inam land. This court had also observed that the petitioners havefailed to prove either their possession or the correctness of their claim of theoccupancy rights certificate granted under the Act. Therefore, this court hasdeclared that the petitioners cannot claim any right, title or interest ofwhatsoever nature in the land in question. The judgment rendered inW.P.No.12535 of 1993 on 27-10-2004 has become final. The writ petitioners1, 2 and 4 herein are parties to the said writ petition. The finding recorded bythis court that the land held by them could not form part of an Inam for one tosecure occupancy rights over the same was thus, staring at them. This apart,this court has also come to the conclusion that the entire land belongs to theerstwhile Nizam of Hyderabad State and consequently could not have formedpart of an Inam. Therefore, the writ petitioners have been declared not tohave any title or right over the Ac.100-00 of land situated in Survey No.266/1of Bandlaguda village which is the subject matter of consideration in theaforementioned W.P.No.12535 of 1993. Incidentally the writ petitioners haveasserted in Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition,that the land of an extent of Ac.7-35 guntas is situated in Survey No.266/1Bandlaguda village. Thus the land which is now the subject matter ofconsideration in the present writ petition is forming part of the larger block orextent of land which was the subject matter of writ petition No.12535 of 1993.

Since the writ petitioners have suffered an adverse finding in W.P. No.12535of 1993 and they have allowed the same to become final and binding onthem, they cannot wriggle out of such a situation by pointing out theproceedings, which arose under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are the subjectmatter of consideration in W.P.No.12535 of 1993, whereas, in the presentwrit petition it is not related to the said Act. I am afraid that such a contentionis factually incorrect, for, the declaration solicited by the writ petitioners evenin the present case centers around the fact that it is declared as excessvacant land held by the Nizam of erstwhile Hyderabad in terms of the UrbanLand Ceiling Act only. Since the subject matter and the contentionscanvassed in W.P.No.12535 of 1993 substantially covers the present set ofpleadings and contentions, and since the adverse finding recorded by thiscourt in W.P.No.12535 of 1993 has already attained finality, the present writpetition deserves to be dismissed. Further the contentions canvassed hereinare equally meritless as, the writ petitioners have not bothered to demonstrateas to how Bandlaguda village or the lands adjoining Falaknuma Palacebelonging to the Nizam of erstwhile Hyderabad State are Inam lands,particularly so, when the respondents have specifically asserted that the writpetitioners 1 and 2 have obtained the occupancy rights certificate underSection 10 of Act, by fraudulent means. For the failure of writ petitioners todemonstrate bonafides behind their claim, the bald assertion made by themthat they have been granted occupancy rights certificates validly and henceunless the same is cancelled in accordance with law, they cannot beproceeded against, cannot be countenanced.

5. However, the writ petitioners have asserted that they are in possessionof the land in question and that they have constructed houses thereon whichhave been assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Hydrabad for propertytax. Unfortunately, the Municipal Corporation could not have verified theclaims relating to the title to the property, while assessing the buildingsconstructed on land falling within it’s limits for assessment of property tax.

Therefore, no serious consideration need be given to the factum ofassessment of the buildings owned by the writ petitioners for taxation by thelocal authority. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment has statedat the bar that the writ petitioners have reconciled to their lack of title over theproperty in question and that they have solicited regularization of theirpossession in terms of the scheme enunciated by the State Governmentunder G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29-7-2002. It is always open to the petitioners topersuade the State Government to regularize their occupations, in the eventthe State considers the same as not objectionable, and regularize the samesubject to collecting the market value of the land in occupation of the writpetitioners.

6. Subject to the above, the W.P. is dismissed as there are no merits, buthowever without costs.

__________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

29-12-2006Stp