9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, the Appellants herein, after removal of the structure made therein by them. The Plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the above-mentioned land and also for other consequential reliefs. The City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed for, against which the Appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No. 123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the Appellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the Appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months' time was granted from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal. FACTS 2. The Plaintiff's case is that it had purchased the land situated in Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others during the year 1981-82. The suit land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1983 to the District Collector under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation of boundaries. Following that, Deputy Director of Survey issued a notice dated 21.01.1984 calling upon the Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant to attend to the demarcation on 25.01.1984. Later, a joint survey was conducted. The 3rd Defendant stated that land to the extent of 4 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No. 60 and 61 corresponds to their G.L.R. (General Land Register) No. 445 and it is their land as per the record. The Deputy Director of Survey, however, stated that lands in Survey Nos. 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village are patta lands as per the settlement records and vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military Pillars and not partly covered in Survey No. 60. Plaintiff later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per the plan prepared by the Revenue Records Under Section 19(v) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Plaintiff further stated that pending that application, officers of Garrison Engineers, on the direction of the 3rd Defendant, illegally occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey No. 60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No. 61. Thus, a total extent of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of PW-3 and 4 also states that the land is covered by old Survey No. 53 which figures in Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62. Ext. A-3 Setwar, is a settlement register prepared by the Survey Officer at the time of revised survey and settlement in the year 1358 Fasli in which the names of the predecessors in title of the Plaintiff are shown as pattedars. In other words, Ex-A-3 is the exhibit of rights and title of Plaintiff's predecessors in title. 8. Defendants, as already indicated, on the other hand, pleaded that the total extent of Survey No. 53 was only 33 acres and 12 guntas and if that be so, after sub-division the extent of sub-divided survey numbers would also remain the same, but the extent of sub-divided Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were increased to 41 acres and 32 guntas in the revenue records without any notice to the Defendants which according to the Defendants, was fraudulently done by one Venkata Narasimha Reddy, the original land owner of Survey No. 53 of Kakaguda village, who himself was the Patwari of Kakaguda village. Further, it was the stand of the Defendants that in exercise of powers under The Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explain as to how the registered family settlement and partition deed did not take place in the disputed land. Learned senior Counsel also submitted that the High Court has committed an error in ignoring the G.L.R. produced by the Defendants, even though there is no burden on the Defendants to establish its title in a suit filed by the Plaintiff for declaration of title and possession. 11. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior Counsel and Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the city civil court as well as the High Court have correctly appreciated and understood the legal position and correctly discarded the entries made in the G.L.R. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the correctness and evidentiary value of G.L.R. entries have to be appreciated in the context of the history of the Secunderabad Cantonment. Reference was made to the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 and it was pointed out that the Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930 do not apply to the Kakaguda village. Learned senior Counsel have also referred to Ex. A6, the Sesala Pahani for the year 1955-58, of Kakaguda village, Ex. A7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, this Court held as under: the onus to prove title to the property in question was on the Plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the Plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit. 15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the Defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the Defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of Plaintiff's own title, Plaintiff must be non-suited. 16. We notice that the trial court as well as the High Court rather than examining that question in depth, as to whether the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title on the scheduled suit land, went o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of Hyderabad record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli. It was also noticed that column 1 to 19 of Pahani Patrika is nothing but record of rights and the entries in column 1 to 19 in Pahani Patrika shall be deemed to be entries made and maintained under Regulations. 20. We are of the view that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the Plaintiff on the suit land in question. Ext. X-1 is Classer Register of 1347 which according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the Plaintiff's vendor's property. We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the Plaintiff's predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. The only document that has been produced before the court was the registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has not been mentioned. 21. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the land in question i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the GLR. The Defendant maintained the stand that the entries made in GLR, maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, in the regular course of administration of the cantonment lands, are admissible in evidence and the entries made therein will prevail over the records maintained under the various enactment, like the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of Rights Rules, 1956 etc. In order to establish that position, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, Union of India and Ors. v. Kamla Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511, Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 555 and Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra Circle, Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin and Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 315. Both, the trial Court and the High Court made a detailed exercise to find out whether the GLR Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and the entries made there under will have more evidentiary value than the Revenue records made by the Survey Department of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
