# STATE OF A.P v. SMT. PRAMEELA MODI AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2006] Supp. 7 S.C.R. 822
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-10-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4604 of2006
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Tarun Chatterjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-a-p-v-smt-prameela-modi-and-ors-21870
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Land-Title to-Sethwar issued in 1947 by erstwhile Nizam Government
showing impugned lands in name of claimant and mutation done in revenue
C records accordingly-Same confirmed in 1964 by Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records, in 1968 in a proceeding before Board of Revenue
and by State Government in 1968-Writ petition for implementation of orders
in these proceedings allowed in 1975 and in contempt arising thereform,
State Government gave undertaking to Court in 1997 to implement themTown Survey Records in 1976 showed impugned lands as belonging
D Goverment Proceedings against claimant to declare tier encroacher set aside
and permission granted by Survey Settlement and Land Records office for
correction of entries in Town Survey Land register in favour of
claimant-Thereafter, show cause notice issued to claimant for cancellation
of those entries and land grabbing case initiated against them-Both set
aside by High Court-Correctness of- Held-Claimant from inception
E continued to be in possession of impugned lands as owner-As Town Survey
howing impugned land as Government land was prior to undertaking given
by State Government in contempt proceedings, it was impermissible for them
to state that those lands were Government lands. As orders of Nizam authority
were legally binding upon statutory authorities of successive Governments,
F issue could not be reopened either in facts or in law at distance of timeAs issues of location, title, possession and subsequent sales settled long back
by proceedings at various levels including Government, after a long
time, it was not open to Government to re-agitate same issue both on the
principles of res judicata and estoppe/.
G
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 8
and J 5-Specia/ Court-Jurisdiction of-Held-As they can play role of
Civil Court and decide disputed question of title and possession, their extent
of jurisdiction was wide-All specific situations envisaged by and under the
Act were triable by them-Condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by
If
822
ST ATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI
823
them was that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land A
grabbing Civil Courts are barred from t1:ving mailers which fall within
exclusive jurisdiction of these Courts constituted under the Act.
Appeal to Supreme Court-Grounds-Property dispute Sheet anchor of
case projected for first time before Court on basis of physical location of
impugned land and bullressed by a new map-No reason given as to why B
that map was no/ filed before any of Courls below in a liligation five decades
old -Nothing staled as to wherefrom that map originaled-Held-Map was
blatantly false and submissions based thereon rejected especially as the map
was directly contrary to undispuled authenticated site map on record.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Scope of Findings of fact C
reached by inferior Court/Tribunal as a resull of appreciation of evidence
cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings -High Court in exercise
of its power under Art. 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and
indulge in re-apprecialion or evalualion of evidence.
Respondent No. 1, finding discrepancy in survey numbers assigned to D
the impugned lands, approached authorised department of the then Nizam
Government, who after due enquiry, issued a supplementary sethwar in the
year 1947 whereby those lands were shown in her name and mutation in
revenue records was also done accordingly. This was confirmed in the year
1964 by Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, in 1965 in a E
proceeding before Board of Revenue and also by Government memo in 1968.
Writ petition of respondent No. l for implementation of orders in these
proceedings was allowed by High Court on 28-8-1975. In Contempt case
arising from non-implementation of this order of High Court, appellant-State
Government gave undertaking on 7-2-1997 to implement the orders in
aforesaid proceedings. However, a Gazet

## Text

_Characters 0–39,252 of 67,042. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39252 for what follows._

A
STATE OF A.P.
v.
SMT. PRAMEELA MODI AND ORS
OCTOBER 30, 2006
B
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
Land-Title to-Sethwar issued in 1947 by erstwhile Nizam Government
showing impugned lands in name of claimant and mutation done in revenue
C records accordingly-Same confirmed in 1964 by Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records, in 1968 in a proceeding before Board of Revenue
and by State Government in 1968-Writ petition for implementation of orders
in these proceedings allowed in 1975 and in contempt arising thereform,
State Government gave undertaking to Court in 1997 to implement themTown Survey Records in 1976 showed impugned lands as belonging
D Goverment Proceedings against claimant to declare tier encroacher set aside
and permission granted by Survey Settlement and Land Records office for
correction of entries in Town Survey Land register in favour of
claimant-Thereafter, show cause notice issued to claimant for cancellation
of those entries and land grabbing case initiated against them-Both set
aside by High Court-Correctness of- Held-Claimant from inception
E continued to be in possession of impugned lands as owner-As Town Survey
howing impugned land as Government land was prior to undertaking given
by State Government in contempt proceedings, it was impermissible for them
to state that those lands were Government lands. As orders of Nizam authority
were legally binding upon statutory authorities of successive Governments,
F issue could not be reopened either in facts or in law at distance of timeAs issues of location, title, possession and subsequent sales settled long back
by proceedings at various levels including Government, after a long
time, it was not open to Government to re-agitate same issue both on the
principles of res judicata and estoppe/.
G
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 8
and J 5-Specia/ Court-Jurisdiction of-Held-As they can play role of
Civil Court and decide disputed question of title and possession, their extent
of jurisdiction was wide-All specific situations envisaged by and under the
Act were triable by them-Condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by
If
822
ST ATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI
823
them was that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land A
grabbing Civil Courts are barred from t1:ving mailers which fall within
exclusive jurisdiction of these Courts constituted under the Act.
Appeal to Supreme Court-Grounds-Property dispute Sheet anchor of
case projected for first time before Court on basis of physical location of
impugned land and bullressed by a new map-No reason given as to why B
that map was no/ filed before any of Courls below in a liligation five decades
old -Nothing staled as to wherefrom that map originaled-Held-Map was
blatantly false and submissions based thereon rejected especially as the map
was directly contrary to undispuled authenticated site map on record.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Scope of Findings of fact C
reached by inferior Court/Tribunal as a resull of appreciation of evidence
cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings -High Court in exercise
of its power under Art. 226 cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and
indulge in re-apprecialion or evalualion of evidence.
Respondent No. 1, finding discrepancy in survey numbers assigned to D
the impugned lands, approached authorised department of the then Nizam
Government, who after due enquiry, issued a supplementary sethwar in the
year 1947 whereby those lands were shown in her name and mutation in
revenue records was also done accordingly. This was confirmed in the year
1964 by Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, in 1965 in a E
proceeding before Board of Revenue and also by Government memo in 1968.
Writ petition of respondent No. l for implementation of orders in these
proceedings was allowed by High Court on 28-8-1975. In Contempt case
arising from non-implementation of this order of High Court, appellant-State
Government gave undertaking on 7-2-1997 to implement the orders in
aforesaid proceedings. However, a Gazette Notification of the Town Survey F
Records dated 25.9.1976 showed those lands as belonging to Government But
proceedings against respondent No. 1 under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 to declare her as an encroacher were set aside by
Joint Collector on 28-8-1993, and accordingly permission wan granted by
Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records for correction of entries G
in Towb Survey Land Register in favour of respondent No. 1. However,
thereafter, appellant, on 25-10-2004, issued show cause notice to respondents
for deletion of those entries. Against the show cause notice, respondents filed
writ petitions before High Court, which were allowed. Hence, one of the present
appeals was filed by appellant
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A
· Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who are subsequent purchasers of impugned
lands and claiming title through respondent No. 1, applied to District Collector
for 'No Objection Certificate' to enable them to submit building plans to
Municipal Authorities. Rejection of grant of this certificate was set aside by
High Court and Special Leave Petition therefrom was set aside by Supreme
Court. On contempt proceedings being initiated against District Collector,
B the aforesaid certificate was issued, but a Land Grabbing case was initiated
against respondents, and the certificate was made subject to outcome of that
case. However, the Special Court, which tried the land grabbing case dismissed
it on 30-7-2004. Against this, appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court, which was dismissed with direction to them not to interfere with the
C impugned lands. Hence, the other one of the present appeals was filed by
appellant
Appellant contended that (i) as per respondent's own document No. 980
of 1st Farwardi 1355 F(1946) the land in question is situated at 115/2 and
the supplementary Sethwar is as per their own contention was issued for the
D land situated at Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and the respondents have grabbed
the Government land situated at Sy. No. 116/1 (ii) the High Court overlooked
the fact that the respondent is claiming the land in Sy. No. 116/l instead of
Sy. No. 116/2 without even producing the original documents before the
Special Court (iii) the Supplementary Sethwar is not conclusive proof of the
E unless it is implemented and approved by the Ni7.am Jamabandi in Faisal Patti
(iv) the Special Court under Act of 1982 has no jurisdiction to decide the
question of title and ownership.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1. The evidence adduced by the respondents clearly established
F that the Sarfekhas administration i.e. the former Ni7.am's Government went
into the title of respondent no. 1 and thereafter issued supplementary sethewar
in her favour for an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas and directed the sub-Division of
Survey No. 116 into Survey Nos. 116/1, 116/2 and 116/3 as back as in the
year 1946, thus patta was granted by Surfekhas authorities in favour of
G respondent no. 1 over an extent of Ac. 2, 21 guntas in Sy. No. 116/2 and Ac.
1.06 guntas in Sy. No. 116/3. Survey No. 116/l alone was treated as
Government land and not Sy. No. 11612 and Sy. No. 116/3. The said order was
also implemented and the mutation was also effected in the revenue records.
Respondent No. 1 thus from the inception continued to be in possession and
enjoyment of Ac. 3.27 guntas in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 as its owner.
H
(845-A, B, C, D(
ST A TE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI
825
1.2. The Government of A.P. issued Memo No. 1547-Rl/65-27 dated 3rd A
December, 1968 confirming the judgment of the Board of Revenue which is
marked as Ex. B-10. The first respondent filed W.P. No. 4526of1975 before
the High Court of A.P. and the High Court by its order dated 28.8.1975 in
WPMP No. 6897/1975 in WP No. 4526/1975 directed the implementation of
the orders of the Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, the Board
of Revenue and that of the Memo of the Government aforementioned. When B
said orders were not implemented, a Contempt Case CC 44/1976 was filed by
the first respondent wherein an undertaking was given on 7.2.1997 by the
Government stating that respondent No. 1 is being informed that the
supplementary Sethwar of 1356 Fasli was received and steps for the
implementation of the same were being taken and the said mutation would be C
finalized during the Jamabandi. It is seen from the records that the Town
Survey was finalized and published on 25.9.1976 showing the land as
Government land which was prior to the aforesaid proceedings and as such it
is impermissible for the Government to state that the land is Government land
as per Town Survey Records. [846-B, C, DJ
D
1.3. The record of Sarfekhas Secretariat in file 99/1945 of 1356 Fasli
contains the approved plan of Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 ad measuring Ac, 3.27
guntas. Though necessary corrections in the related records were not carried
out, respondent No. 1 continued to be in possession of the land as the owner.
But the said proceedings were taken cognizance by the revenue authorities E
including the Government and the title of respondent No. 1 to the land was
never questioned either by the Government of Hyderabad or Government of
Andhra Pradesh. In view of this, the contention of the appellant that respondent
No. 1 suppressed the sale deed before the Special Court is not correct. Her
title as aforesaid is based on the supplementary Sethwar issued by the
Surfekhas authorities of the erstwhile Nizam Government which was accepted F
by the Survey and Revenue authorities including the Government of A.P. Since
the orders of the Surfekhas authority are legally binding upon the statutory
authorities of the successive Governments, i.e. the Government of Hyderabad
and later Government of A.P. the issue cannot, therefore, be reopened either
in facts or in law at this distance of time. [845-G, H, 846-A, BJ
Ameer-un-Nissa Begum & Ors. v. Mahboob Begum & Ors., AIR (1955)
. SC 352 and Rajah S. V. Jagannath Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR
(1962) SC 141, referred to.
G
2. There is no allegation much less any proof that the respondents have H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A taken possession illegally and fully knowing that they were acting illegally
while taking possession; There is also no allegation on any of the respondents
unauthorisedly snatching the land belonging to the Government. On the other
hand, the Special Court on an analysis of the evidence held that the State has
failed to establish that the land in possession of the respondent forms part of
B Survey No. 116/1 and on the other hand the application schedule property is
located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and that the first respondent is the
owner of the property in dispute and is in possession of the said property as
owner. It is also not the case of the appellant that the Special Court has eit>her
acted an evidence, which is legally inadmissible or has refused to admit
admissible evidence. (844-G, H; 845-AI
c
3. The High Court and the Special Court have also rightly concluded
that the land in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 is not Government land after perusing
both oral and documentary evidence and rightly dismissed the petition filed
by the State by holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
and further holding that the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or
D Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings and by holding that the High Court in exercise
of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot convert itself
into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the
evidence. (847-C, D, Ef
E
4. The sheet anchor of the case of the appellant projected for the first
time before this Court and not urged before any Courts below is the physical
location of the land in dispute which is buttressed by a new mop filed for the
first time before this Court to bolster up the said new false plea set up for the
first time. No reasons whatsoever have been given as to why the said map was
F not filed before any of the Courts below in a litigation which is five decades
old Nothing is stated as to wherefrom the said site map has originated and on
what survey and land record it is based. The said map is directly contrary to
the undis1mted authenticated site map issued by the Collector himself which
was Ex. B-12 before the trial Court. A true copy of which is also annexed to
the Special Leave Petition. A perusal of Ex. B-12 shows that Survey Nos. 116/
G 2 and 116/3 in respect of which patta was admittedly granted in favour of the
first respondent is at the same very place where for the first time now it is .,;
being projected before this Court as Survey No. 116/1. Ex. B-12 and its
veracity issued by the Collector himself has not been challenged at any time
before any of the Courts below during the last SO years of litigation. It may
H surprise one's understanding as to how a new survey number can be projected
'
ST A TE OF A.I'. v. PRAMEELA MODI
827
by filing a new map for the first time in the place where survey Nos. 116/2 A
and 116/3 are is shown situated Absolutely no re.isons were given for filing
of the said new map showing different survey numbers contrary to the survey
numbers as in Ex. B-12. In fact there are number of exhibits certified by the
Collector himself which show Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 situate at the very
site where now Survey No. 11611 is alleged to be situated. In fact Ex. B-12
issued by the office of the Collector showing Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 B
abutting the main road has been drawn from the village map as existing in
the revenue records. A perusal of the said village map annexed as Annexure
to the S.L.P. also shows that Survey Nos. 116/2and116/3 are situated at the
very same place where for the first time now it is being projected that Survey
No. 116/1 is situated. (843-F, G, H; 844-A, B, C, DI
C
5.1. The Special Court can play the role of a Civil Court and decide the
disputed question of the title and possession. The extent of jurisdiction as is
permitted by the statute, therefore, is rather wide in its application. All the
specific situations as envisaged by and under the Statute would be triable in
the Special Court. The condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction by the D
Special Court is that the case must have arisen out of any alleged act of land
grabbing and a District Judge while acting as a Special Court merely acts as
a Presiding Officer of the Court. Having regard to the provisions of Section
8(2) read with Section 15 of the Act, no suit for title in respect of the disputed
land which was alleged to be grabbed by the party could be entertained by the E
Civil Court. In other words, the Civil Court is barred from trying the matters
which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted
under the Act. (840-E, F, G; 841-A-B(
5.2. Thus it is seen that the Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to
try the matters with respect to the ownership, title and lawful possession.
F
[841-D,EI
5.3. In the application filed before the Special Court by the appellant,
the prayer (a) was to declare the applicant (State of A.P.) as owner of the
Application Schedule land and to declare the respondents as land grabbers.
In the Concise Statement, it has been averred that the Special Court always
got jurisdiction to decide all questions relating to title and other incidental G
questions including the other questions that may arise or fall under the
jurisdiction of some other forum in order to give reliefs. It is also further
stated in the concluding portion of the Concise Statement that no civil Suit is
pending before any Civil Court pertaining to the application schedule land
(841-E, FJ H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A
6.1. It is clear that long back the issues of location of the scheduled
B
property, the title of the first respondent, her long standing possession and
subsequent sales made by her were settled once of all as evidenced by the
proceedings at various levels including the Government Therefore, after such
a long time, it is not open to the government to re-agitate the same issue both
on the principles of resjudicata and estoppel. (846-H, 847-A(
6.2. The matters which were concluded by the decisions of the competent
statutory authorities cannot be re-opened and a citizen cannot be subjected to
such repeated litigation. Therefore, the issue about the physical location
raised by the government, for the first time before this Court, by filing a
C fabricated and unauthenticated sketch which has no basis whatsoever, with
regard to the location of the land belonging to respondent No. t. (847-A, BJ
6.3. There is no irregularity and infirmity in the judgment passed by
the High Court as well as the Special Court in rejecting the claim of the
State. The Special Court elaborately considered and concluded the title of the
D property in question in favour of the first respondent. Therefore there is no
scope at all for this Court to interfere with the considered factual findings at
this belated stage. The parties are litigating for the last 50 years and it is
high time that the parties should realize the correct fact situation and close
the tis once and for all. (848-A, BJ
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4604 of2006.
From the final Common Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2005 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 20537 and 19552/2004.
A.K. Ganguly, J." Prabhakar, Manoj Saxena, Janjish Kr. Singh, Rahul
F Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellant.
Harish N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, L.N. Rao, Akhil Sibal, H. Venguopal, S.
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan (for Mis Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V.N.
Raghupathy, Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju, V. Sridhar Reddy, R.V. Kameshwaran,
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Venkat Subramaniam T.R., R. Santhan
G Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar and C.S.N.
Mohan Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, .I.]
829
This case has a chequered history. This is the sixth in series of litigation A
between the State of A.P. and the respondents herein. Both parties are in the
legal battle field fighting for the five decades.
The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State are tell tale.
They are required to be noticed in detail. The !is between the State of A.P.
and the respondents centers around a piece of land admeasuring acres 3-27 B
guntas situated in Khairatabad village in Hyderabad District. As rightly pointed
out by the High Court the dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State
attained its freedom still awaits its final resolution. Brief facts are as follows:-
Survey No.116 of Khairatabad village is admeasuring 55 acres classified
as poramboke sarkari Government land. Prior to sub-division conducted in C
favour of Smt. Prameela Modi, four nos. were sub-divided and assigned
survey nos. :
Sy. No.
Extent (Areas)
116/2
Ac. 6.0 I gts Raja Ram Dev
D
116/3
Ac. 5.00 gts Moulvi Farhatullah
116/4
Ac. 7.35 gts Pingali Venkat Ram Reddy
116/5
Ac. 6.35 gts Rama Krishna Reddy
E
In view of the discrepancy in the survey nos. Smt. Prameela Modi
approached the Sarfekhas Authorities for resolution of the dispute and after
due enquiry, the matter was finally resolved by issuance of a supplementary
sethwar in 1357 Fasli (1947) by which 3 acres of27 guntas out of survey No.
116 was directed to be entered in the name of Smt. Prameela Modi and a map F
was also issued by the Superintendent of Survey to effect necessary entries
in the survey records (Ex. BS and B6). When the sub-division work was
carried out and supplementary sethwar was issued in favour of Smt. Prameela
Modi, the survey nos. assigned to her land was also 116/2 and 116/3. During
the course of mutation in revenue records to overcome the discrepancy which G
has crept due to ignorance of the mutation of sub-division earlier assigned
for Smt. Prameela Modi, the land was assigned survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3. The same entries of pahani followed in town survey records which are
marked as Ex. B-19, 20 and 21 and a town survey extract of the year 1994 is
marked as Exh. B-28.
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A
The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh
B
c
in his proceedings bearing No. Ref. Fl- 18556/64 dated 29.05.1964 had framed
an issue as to where exactly this land is located with reference to the maps
now available. The said issue was answered by the Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records in the above referred proceedings which is extracted
hereunder:
"The next question is with regard to the location of this number. Here
again it was found that both the land record Officer as well as the
petitioner Mrs. C.L. Modi are agreed upon the general location of this
land, according to the revision survey map. According to both of
them, this land is located along the line with the tank on the south
and the road leading up to the Rock Castle Hotel on the eastern side.
There is also therefore, no dispute as far as the second issue is
concerned. The Board of Revenue upheld the said orders by judgment
dated 24.04.1965 in Appeal U2/1237/64."
D
The Gazette Notification of the Town Survey Record showing Blocks AN in Ward No. 89 as Government land whereas the implementation of the
order of the High Court in WP M.P. No. 6897 which is marked as Ex.B-36 was
28.08.1975 which was subsequent to Ex.A-I on the basis of the entries in the
town survey proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act were initiated on
16.11.1991 against Smt. Prameela Modi which were set aside on 28.08.1993 by
E the Joint Collector stating that the land belongs to Smt. Prameela Modi and
that she is not an encroacher. The Joint Collector referred to the history of
the case in this order. The Joint Collector directed Smt. Prameela Modi to
approach the Collector for correction of revenue records including TSLR,
which was ordered by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement on a reference by
F the District Collector. Accordingly, permission was accorded by the
Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in file No. CSS and LR
Ref. No.P5/3 I 6/94 dated 12.05.1994 for the correction of entries in the Town
Survey Land register observing that since the lands under reference are prima
facie patta lands as per survey settlement registers and village registers in
favour of Smt. Prameela Modi before town survey was conducted and
G announced in 1976. The sub-division was carried out in Town Survey records
vide proceedings in file No. GITS/98194 as T.S. No. 311/IA and 3/1/1/B
correlating to Survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3. Further, the town survey plans
prepared on 26.05.1994 in pursuance of the corrections carried out in Town
Survey records in 1994 shows the physical location of the land of the first
H respondent with the town survey nos. which tallies exactly with the present
•
-
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN. J. ]
831
location.
Panchanama was conducted vide proceedings in· File No. G./TS/107/94
dated 01.06.1994 by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records and boundaries
of the lands in T.S. Nos. 3/1/IA and 3/1/IB in Block K, Ward No.89, correlating
A
to Survey No. 116/2 and 116/3 of the Khairatabad village were fixed with
measurements. The extent and location of the lands belonging to 1st respondent B
tallies exactly with the present location.
The allocation of sub-division number SI. No. 116 which consists of
private lands and also government lands was done by the Survey Officials
connected to the State Government. Right from the year 1945 respondent's
rights over the land in occupation is evident from the copy of the sethwar C
issued by the Sarfekhas authorities the then authorized department to issue
the same. The sethwar clearly indicates that the land in Sy. No.116 was a
compact Block but basing upon the respective recognition of rights of the
private parties over the land in their occupation the Sub Divisional numbers
carried out on 116 only.
D
The series of orders more so the proceedings of Director, Settlement
Survey and land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in reference No. Fl/
18556/64 dated 29.05.1964 the issue with regard to the possession of respondent
and the location of the land in the possession of this Respondent was
decided in the presence of the Land Records Assistant.
E
On 29.10.1997 the District Collector, Hyderabad, rejected the application
made by the Respondent Nos.2 to 7, who are the subsequent purchasers and
who are claiming title through Smt. Prameela Modi, for grant of No Objection
Certificate in order to enable them to submit building plans to Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad. The rejection memo was set aside by the High F
Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 10159/1998 and the District Collector was
directed to issue No Objection Certificate. The said judgment was confirmed
by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2235/1998. The Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 12103/2000 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 18.08.2000.
G
After the dismissal of S.L.P. on 18.08.2000, the respondent No.7 herein
filed a contempt case being C.C.No. 1061/2001 against the District Collector
for not issuing the No Objection Certificate as directed by the High Court in
W.P.No. 10159/98 as it attained finality with the dismissal of S.L.P. No.12103/
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A 2000. The State filed Land Grabbing Case against the respondents and issued
No Objection Certificate to the respondents in respect of the subject property,
stating that the same is subject to outcome of the Land Grabbing Case. The
contempt case was closed on 24.01.2002.
Land Grabbing Case LGC I 0/2002 filed by the State against the
B Respondents was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004 with
the following findings:
c
D
E
F
G
H
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The applicant absolutely failed to prove that the application
schedule property is located in Survey No. 116/1.
The respondents have proved that they are the owners and
pattedars of the land located in survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3.
The applicant with full knowledge that the respondents are the
absolute owners of the land located in Survey Nos. 116/2 and
11613
1 has filed the application as if the application schedule
property is located in Survey No.116/1.
The application schedule property is located in Sy. Nos. 116/2
and 116/3 and that Mrs. Prameela Modi (predecessor in title of
the petitioner No. I) is the owner of the application schedule
property and she is in possession of the application schedule
property as owner.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, on the I st issue we hold
that the applicant is not the owner of the application schedule
property.
In view of the abovesaid discussion and in view of our findings
on issue No. I, on the 2nd issue, we hold the rival title set up
by the respondents is true and valid and binding on the applicant.
In view of the abovesaid discussions and in view of our findings
on issues I to 3 on the 4th issue, we hold that the Government
recognized the title and interest of the 1st respondent in respect
of land to an extent of Ac. 3.27 guntas located in Survey Nos.116/
2 and 116/3 more than 33 years ago prior to filing of this L.G.C
and Nizam Government recognized and conferred the title on the
respondent in 1357 fasli in respect of an extent of Ac. 3.27
guntas of Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 and the same was confirmed
by the Board of revenue stating that the I st respondent is
-
....
-
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
833
entitled to Ac. 3.27 gunta in Sy. Nos. 116/2 and 116/3 including A
the land which the 1st respondent sold in favour of two persons
under registered sale deeds in Fasli 1357, the extent of which
was 11200 sq. yards.
*
In the result the application is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the special Court, the State filed writ petition
No. 20537 of 2004 before the High Court. The State Government through
Principal Secretary Government of A.P. issued a show cause notice to the
respondents dated 25.10.2004 stating that why the orders of the Commissioner
B
of Survey and Settlement Land Records in proceedings dated 12.05.1994
issued in BS0-34B(IO) should not be cancelled and the entries made in town C
survey land records be deleted.
Being aggrieved by the issuance of show cause notice, the respondents
filed Writ Petition No. 20642 of 2004 before the High Court. Some of the
respondents filed Writ Petition No. 19552 of 2004 praying inter alia for a D
declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 not to dis-possess the writ
petitioners with aid of police from the property in survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/
3 is illegal. By the impugned order dated 26.04.2005 the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. The Division Bench
has allowed the Writ Petition No. 19552 of2004 and directed the Government
not to interfere with the land in question and dismissed Writ Petition No. E
20537 of 2004 filed by the State of A.P. Hence, the above two appeals.
We have heard Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. L.N. Rao learned
senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents. F
Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
took us through the relevant records and also of the various proceedings and
the judgments. According to Mr. Ganguly, the High Court has failed to
appreciate that as per their own document No. 980 oflst Farwardi 1355 F(l 946)
the land in question is situated at 115/2 and the supplementary Sethwar is as G
per their own contention was issued for the land situated at Sy. Nos. 116/2
and 116/3 and the respondents have grabbed the Government land situated
at Sy. No. 116/1. He further contended that the supplementary Sethwar is not
conclusive proof of title unless it is implemented and approved by the Nizam
Jamabandi in Faisal Patti. According to him, the High Court has failed to H
appreciate that the lands in question are government lands and the respondents
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A do not have any title over the lands in question and that the respondents
have played fraud upon the courts by not producing the alleged supplementary
Sethwar, the plan which as it transpires now, was never authenticated by the
concerned Deputy Director of Survey & Land Records who is the custodian
of the same on the fact of it. He further submitted that the originals in respect
B of these documents are not available with the office of the Deputy Director
of Survey & Land Records, casting any amount of doubt on the veracity and
genuineness of these documents. He further submitted that the High Court
has failed to appreciate that the respondents concealed the fact before the
Special Court and did not produce the sale deed even when the appellant
herein filed the sale deed by way of additional affidavit, the High Court did
C not consider the same and passed the erroneous order. It was further submitted
that the appellant has produced prima facie evidence on record to establish
that Khasra Pahanis and Town Survey records to prove that the land in
question in S.No.116/l is a Government land and that the High Court has
grossly overlooked the fact that the respondent is claiming the land in Sy. No.
D 116/1 instead of Sy. No. 116/2 without even producing the original documents
before the Special Court. According to him, the High Court ought to have
appointed a Court Commissioner duly assisted by the officer of survey
department to determine the exact location of the land being claimed by
respondent No. I and rest of the respondents without which the High Court
cannot arrive at a conclusion as to the location of the property in dispute.
E He also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 14 of the A.P.
Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 and also the judgment of this court in N.
Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)
Act & Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 214. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Ganguly
submitted that the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are
F contrary to the principles laid down by this Court and the same are
unsustainable in law and facts.
Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
while replying to the arguments of learned senior counsel for the appellant
first invited our attention to the proceeding of the Director of Settlements,
G Survey & Land Records, Board of Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad dated 29.5.1964.
We have carefully perused the same. He placed before us three maps on
record namely of the year 1946 which is appended to Sethwar itself(page 65
of Vol.II), 1978 map by Survey Department and in this regard he invited our
attention to pages 103 & 104 of Vol.II. M.C. Inspector. Hyderabad Urban Taluk
H to the Collector Land Records, Hyderabad - District by his letter dated
2.1.1976 addressed to the Collector Land Records Hyderabad informing the
. '
-
....
STA TE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN. J.]
835
Collector as under:
A
"With the help of the plans available in the file, S. Nos.116/2 and
116/3 have been inspected and boundaries, have been demarcated on
the site, in presence of the representative of the party. No one has
seen the demarcation, of the land in question. The said representative
has also given in writing that he was present at the time of demarcation, B
and he has seen all the boundaries.
The statements of the representative along with the authorization
letter of Dr. C.L. Modi the petitioner, are submitted herewith for perusal
and necessary action."
c
Map issued in the year 1978 by the authorities is available at page I 04
of Vol.II. The third map was issued in the year 1994 by the Town survey which
is at page 133 of Vol.II. A map dated 21.7.2005 signed by the Dy. Director,
Survey and Land Record Records, Hyderbad was placed by Mr. Ganguly. We
have perused the said plan placed before us at the time of hearing. The said
D
plan is incomplete in regard to all other maps which were placed by the
concerned authorities and also before the High Court. We cannot, therefore,
give any credence to the map which was placed before us after the High Court
judgment.
Mr. R.F. Nariman then drew our attention to the Andhra Pradesh Survey E
& Boundaries Act, 1923 and in particular, Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of
the Act reads thus:
"9. Power of survey officer to determine and record an undisputed
boundary:- (I) The survey officer shall have power to detennine and
record undisputed any boundary in respect of which no dispute is F
brought to his notice.
(2) Notice to registered holders of lands affected:- Notice of every
decision of the survey officer under section 9(1) shall be given in the
prescribed manner to the registered holders of the lands the boundaries
of which may be affected by the decisions."
G
The submission of Mr. Nariman was not controverted by learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant.
Our attention was drawn to the proceedings of the Commissioner of
Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad dated 12.5.1994 with H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A regard to the correction of Town Survey Records in respect of 116/1, 116/2
and 116/3 of Khairatabad village which is corrected to Town Survey No. 3/
I/Block - K, Ward-18. It is useful to reproduce few paragraphs in the concluding
part of the said order:
B
c
"That in the first instance the D.O.S. Hyderabad in his Fl/18556/
64 m Dt. 29-05-64 confirmed the entries of the supplementary Sethwar
issued in F.1357 (1947) by the Surfekhas authorities. The sane orders
D.O.S. Hyderabad dated 29.05.1964 were confirmed Erstwhile Board of
Revenue in 02/237/64 Dt. 24.04.65 and also the Government in the
Memo No. 1547/Rl/65 Dt. 27, Dt. 3.12.68. The Joint Collector in his
order F4/9232/91 Dt.28.8.93 endorsed for correction of town surveyor
crept in during town survey conducted and announced in the year
1976. Further the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P.M.P
No. 6897175 in W.P.M.P. No. 4526175 Dt.28.08.75 directed the Revenue
authorities to implement of the order of Revenue authorities who
confirmed the supplementary Sethwar issued by the Surfekhas
D
authorities.
As such the Collector Hyderabad incorporated the entries of
supplementary Sethwar in the village by the Pahanies of 1980-81 but
the entries in the town survey registers have not been corrected.
E
Since the land under reference are prima facie patta lands as per
F
G
H
survey settlement registers and village registers in favour of Smt.
Pramila Modi before town survey conducted and announced in 1976.
The collector Hyderabad submitted the present proposals for correction
of classification which was wrongly entered in town survey registers
under B.S.O 34-8(10).
When the matter has been referred to the Director Survey
Settlement and Land Records Hyderabad, the Deputy Director H.Qs
stated that the correction proposals sent by the collector Hyderabad
have been technically scrutinized and are found in order, that the
detailed town survey of Hyderabad city was conducted under the
provisions of A.P.S.B Act,
1923 and has been validated 13 of
A.P.S.B Act, that the corrections can be carried out only under the
provisions of B.S.O 3-4-B (JO)."
In the circumstances reported by the Collector Hyderabad and as
his proposals are found correct on technical scrutiny by the Head Qrs.
.J
STATE OF A.P. v. PRAMEELA MODI [LAKSHMANAN,J.)
837
Deputy Director of L.C.S.Officer, the Commissioner, Survey Settlement A
A.P. Hyderabad agrees with him and permit the Collector, Hyderabad
under Rule 8 0 34-B (I 0) to correct the town survey records as
proposed by him. "
He also invited our attention to the show cause notice dated 25.10.2004
by the Government of A.P., Revenue Department calling upon Smt. Prameela B
Modi & Ors. to show cause why the order of Commissioner of Survey and
Settlement and Land Records in proceedings dated 12.5.1994 under BSO 34B-10 should not be cancelled and to delete the entries made in Town Survey
Records No. 3/1/1 ofBlock- K Ward No. 89 ofKhairatabad village in pursuance
of the said order to submit their explanation. It was submitted that this notice C
was challenged by the !st respondent herein in W.P.No. 20642 of 2004 and
the High Court has entertained the same and is pending. The High court has
also granted the stay of the proceedings.
Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 has no D
jurisdiction to decide the question of title and ownership.
This submission was controverted by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents by inviting our attention to Section
8 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Section 8 of the said Act
reads as follows:
E
"8.