AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS. versus GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 16-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 8 S.C.R. 607 
AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS. 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!No. 5441 of2015) 
AUGUST 16,2017 
[R.F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.) 
Land laws - Claim of title on land - Error committed by Court 
B 
by mixing-up of two properties - Land in question had been subject 
matter of urban land ceiling proceedings - Appellants contended c 
that despite the fact that qua the said land, all findings were in their 
favour, yet the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the 
order of the Single Judge, and linked the appellants with persons 
who had been held as land grabbers - Held: The title of appellants 
to the land in question is clearly traceable to a compromise decree 
pursuant to which sale deed was entered in favour of their mothers D 
- Also, the State Government had recommended issuance of 
supplementary sethwar in respect of the land belonging to the 
appellants - Both Single Judge and Division Bench held that the 
land owned by the appellants was not concerned with any evacuee 
proceedings - Division Bench committed error in mixing up the 
E 
appellants' property with another property - Therefore, the order 
of the Division Bench set aside and directions in the order of the 
Single Judge restored. 
Allowing the appeals Nos. 5442-5456 of 2015 and dismissing 
the appeal No. 5441 of 2015, the Court 
F 
. HELD: 1. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 
One thing is clear that the appellants title to the land in Survey 
no.129 is clearly traceable to a compromise decree pursuant to 
which a sale deed was entered into in favour of the mother of the 
appellants. Also by a memorandum, the Andhra Pradesh G 
Government has recommended that supplementary sethwars be 
issued in the revenue records in respect of 41 cases, one of which 
comprises the land belonging to the appellants. (Para 8) 
[610-D) 
607 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
2. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the urban land 
ceiling proceedings, except to state that those proceedings were 
taken by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, which culminated 
in the repeal Act of 1999 being applied to the lands belonging to 
the appellants. Somehow, in the course of those proceedings, 
B the name of another gentleman was brought up, which led to 
c:onfusion and allegations made against the appellants that their 
property had already been dealt with in evacuee proceedings. 
Ultimately, both the single Judge and the Division Bench have 
held in favour of the appellants on this specific count and have 
stated that the Survey No. owned by the appellants is not 
C concerned with any evacuee proceedings. (Para 91 (610-E-FI 
3. The Division Bench of High Court did not keep the two 
Surveys Nos., namely Survey no. 403 and Survey no.129 apart, 
while deciding the appeal before it. It is clear that the Division 
Bench is in error in mixing up the two properties. [Paras 10-111 
D 
(611-E-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5441 
of2015. 
E 
From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2011 
passed by the High Court of Judicature atAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 
in W.A. No.236 of2009 
WITH 
F 
Civil Appeal Nos.5442-5456 of2015. 
G 
H 
Dushyant Dave, V. V.S. Rao, Sr. Advs., Ms. Bina Madhavan, K.K. 
Waghray, Piyush Dwivedi, Mrs. Elizabeth Antony (for Mis Lawyer S. 
Knit & Co.), G Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Ms. Filza 
Moonis, Advs. for the Appellant. 
C. S. Vaidyanathan, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant 
Kr. Tyagi (for M/s Venkat Paliwai Law Associates), G.N. Reddy, 
Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, Ananga Bhattacharyya, 
Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Mukund P. Unny, Advs. for the Respondents. 
AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS. v. GOVT. OF 
609 
A.P. & ORS. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R.F. NARIMAN, J. 
CIVIL APPEAL N0.5441 OF 2015: 
1. In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5439-5440/2015 
dated 09.08.2017, nothing survives in this appeal. 
B 
2. The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly. 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF 2015: 
3. The controversy in the present appeals centers around a piece 
of land ad-measuring 6205 sq. mts. in Survey No. 129/45/D in Jubilee C 
Hills, Hyderabad. The appellants before this Court claim their title from 
a compromise decree dated 30.08.1961 followed by a Sale Deed dated 
16.07 .1962 to their predecessors. 
4. On 09.08.2017, this Court had rejected all appeals concerning 
·survey No. 403
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.