HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday discovered fault with city earnings officials for recording a non-public property at Nampally as govt property and describing population as encroachers while seeking to evict them under the land encroachment Act. The bench of acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Ok Vijaya Lakshmi was once surprised to hear the argument of the state counsel, who stated their the town survey land file (TSLR) prepared between 1963 and 1976 listed the valuables in question as ‘G’ in a column, meaning that it was once govt land. “You will mark G for my house and I have to run around courts to end up my identify. Instead, better you go to a civil courtroom and end up your identify and till then handle status quo on the land, a fuming CJ told the state.
The bench was once hearing an enchantment filed by way of Telangana govt in opposition to an order of a single judge, who too discovered the state model unacceptable and dominated in favour of Kamal Kishore Agarwal, owner of the non-public property at Nampally. He claims to be absolutely the owner of properties bearing Municipal Nos. 5-7-232/A and No. 5-7-233 admeasuring 558 sq.yards and 870 sq.yards respectively at Aghapura, Nampally mandal. His father bought it from one Fatimunnisa Begum in 1955 through a registered sale deed. Government Pleader (GP) for earnings division, Ok Durga Reddy stated their TSLR column 10 displays the area as NIL space that has no survey quantity and hence it needs to be govt land. Also column 20 of the similar file describes property as ‘G’. This means that is govt land, state counsel stated.
The bench raised a question as to why a 1955 registered sale deed may just now not to find mention within the the town survey that came about a decade later. It additionally stated regardless that the sale deed particulars were not discussed in TSLR, certainly one of its columns did mention the title of Fatimunnisa Begum, showing her as the landlord of the valuables. “Why was once her title recorded within the column if she has were given not anything to do with the land,” the bench asked. Appearing for Kamal Kishore Agarwal, senior counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana told the bench that the ‘G’ access is not conclusive evidence to say this was once govt land. “In fact ‘enjoyers’ (possessor of land) column of the similar TSLR carries the title of my client,” he stated. The bench stated showing an insignificant capital letter (G), authorities can not throw away other folks. “That can be a deadly trend. Show us one thing as opposed to this G to say that is govt land,” the bench stated and asked state counsel to approach a civil courtroom and end up its identify if it chooses to do so.
Though the federal government pleader for earnings argued that state cannot be asked to approach a civil courtroom, the bench brushed apart his views. “If you don’t approach a civil courtroom inside of 4 months,” the order of the single judge would develop into operational, the bench told the state counsel.
The bench was once hearing an enchantment filed by way of Telangana govt in opposition to an order of a single judge, who too discovered the state model unacceptable and dominated in favour of Kamal Kishore Agarwal, owner of the non-public property at Nampally. He claims to be absolutely the owner of properties bearing Municipal Nos. 5-7-232/A and No. 5-7-233 admeasuring 558 sq.yards and 870 sq.yards respectively at Aghapura, Nampally mandal. His father bought it from one Fatimunnisa Begum in 1955 through a registered sale deed. Government Pleader (GP) for earnings division, Ok Durga Reddy stated their TSLR column 10 displays the area as NIL space that has no survey quantity and hence it needs to be govt land. Also column 20 of the similar file describes property as ‘G’. This means that is govt land, state counsel stated.
The bench raised a question as to why a 1955 registered sale deed may just now not to find mention within the the town survey that came about a decade later. It additionally stated regardless that the sale deed particulars were not discussed in TSLR, certainly one of its columns did mention the title of Fatimunnisa Begum, showing her as the landlord of the valuables. “Why was once her title recorded within the column if she has were given not anything to do with the land,” the bench asked. Appearing for Kamal Kishore Agarwal, senior counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana told the bench that the ‘G’ access is not conclusive evidence to say this was once govt land. “In fact ‘enjoyers’ (possessor of land) column of the similar TSLR carries the title of my client,” he stated. The bench stated showing an insignificant capital letter (G), authorities can not throw away other folks. “That can be a deadly trend. Show us one thing as opposed to this G to say that is govt land,” the bench stated and asked state counsel to approach a civil courtroom and end up its identify if it chooses to do so.
Though the federal government pleader for earnings argued that state cannot be asked to approach a civil courtroom, the bench brushed apart his views. “If you don’t approach a civil courtroom inside of 4 months,” the order of the single judge would develop into operational, the bench told the state counsel.
G for Government? You can’t throw out citizens like that: HC
![G for Government? You can’t throw out citizens like that: HC]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
March 22, 2018
Rating:
