B.S. John vs Prl. Secretary, Housing and Municipal Admn., Govt. of A.P. and Others

The petitioner is the owner of 342 Sq. Yds. covered by House No.5-9-204, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. Originally the house and the land belonged to one Matilde-Englar, she bequeathed the said property to the Dichpally Management Committee under a Will dated 23-1-1943. On her death the Dichpally Management Committee has become the owner of the property and resolved to sell the property by solution dated 1-2-1971. Accordingly, it was sold in 1972 in favour of the petitioner. Ever since he has been in possession of the properly, while so 50 yards of this property was acquired by the Collector and on 25-8-1989 an award was passed in favour of the petitioner. However, G.O.Ms. No. 51, M.A., dated 5-2-1996 was issued which an option was given to the owners of the property, whose property was acquired to opt for construction of extra built-up area in lieu of compensation. The petitioner has availed the said option and had not taken the compensation. The petitioner wanted to change the usage of the land from residential to commercial by constructing shops. Therefore, he approached the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority. The Urban Development Authority permitted the petitioner to change the usage of the property from residential to commercial. The relevant order was passed on 22-7-1996 and i reads as follows :

"I am directed to inform that the Govt, in principle have agreed for relaxation of Z.R. 6-1 -2 for change of land use to permit shops and store in the ground floor of the proposed building at H. No.5-9-204 Chiragaii Lane, Hyderabad to an extent of 342 sq.mts in favour of Sri. U.S. John, subject to payment of development charges as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.51, MA dated 5-2-1996"

The petitioner accordingly paid the charges on 12-11-1996. While so, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority by its letter dated 28-4-1997 directed the petitioner to produce ''No objection Certificate'' from the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling for the premises in question. The petitioner accordingly applied for the same under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The Urban Land Ceiling Authority by its order dated 5-6-1997 pointed out that as per the Town Survey Records for H. No.5-9-204, Chiragaii Lane, Hyderabad G.P.W.D is the occupier, though he was the owner, therefore he was informed to clarify how the vendor Dichpally Management Committee has become the owner of the property to consider his request. When he approached the Collector for rectification of Town Survey Records, the Collector refused it and on further appeal to the Commissioner, he also refused holding the remedy as regular suit and not rectification of the records. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner approached the District Collector with representation for correction of entire record in Town Survey Records on 27-6-1997 and to direct the respondent No.4 herein to delete the entry of ''G.P.W.D.'' from Col.No.20 of Town Survey Land Register. The applicant herein was informed vide Memo L.Dis No.B2/ 142/97 that there is no provision to correct the validated Town Survey Records, after its notification u/s 13 of Survey and Boundaries Act 1923. The Survey of the area was notified in the District Gazette No. 13 dated 28-2-1977 and the applicant herein had failed to file a civil suit for correction of entries in the records within a period of three years u/s 14 of Survey and Boundaries Act. Therefore the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected.

From the counter affidavit, it is clear that they refused to correct the entry in the Town Survey Records on the ground that there is no provision for correcting the Town Survey Records and as Survey was notified in the District Gazette dated 28-2-1977 and the remedy of the petitioner is by way of regular suit.

The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has to file a suit is absurd as the petitioner is not asking for correction of boundary on any land, he is only asking for the correction of entry wrongly made in the Town Survey Records. It is surprised to note that Public Works Department is called as ''G.P.W.D.'' In the history of any Government, the P.W.D. is not called as Government Public Works Department, admittedly it is a mistake. When once there is a mistake in the Town Survey Records, the respondents ought to have corrected the same instead of harassing the citizens and directing them to Court. Further the petitioners are in possession of the land right from 1942 is not disputed. Further the extent of land is only 342 Sq.mts.

In addition, neither the petitioner nor the respondents could bring to my notice any provisions under which clearance from Urban Land Ceiling Authority is required. The Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to vacant land which is more than 1000 sq. mts. The land being only 342 sq.mts, in which the building is there the Urban Land Ceiling Act has no application, therefore the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority issued the letter dated 28-4-1997 without applying its mind. The question of clarification from Urban Land Ceiling Authority docs not arise in a case where the land is less than 100 Sq.Mtrs. as the Act has no application to such lands.

I therefore, direct Deputy. Director, Survey and land Settlement, Hyderabad to correct the entry in Column No.20 of the Town Survey Register as prayed for by the petitioner. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is also directed to grant permission to change the land use without insisting on clearance certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Authority as the said Act is not applicable to the petitioner''s lands. The Urban Land Development Authority is going beyond its jurisdiction and Power in asking the petitioner to produce clearance certificate when the Act is not applicable to their land. The respondents are directed to take action within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate Fee Fixed at Rs.1000/-.