Summary
In compliance proceedings concerning demarcation of land at Jubilee Hills, the Court rejected a second survey report as inconsistent with the sale deed and earlier competent-authority findings. To avoid another round of litigation in the extraordinary circumstances, it identified the disputed parcel under Article 142, set aside its allotment to a publication company and ordered delivery and restitution.
Issues
- Whether the compliance survey correctly located Survey No. 129/45/D and what consequential relief should follow.
Held
- The rectangular boundaries in the 1962 sale deed and the Urban Land Ceiling Authority’s description supported the parcel marked PQRS in the compliance map, rather than the built-up triangular parcel proposed by the authorities. The State’s assertion that the publication company’s parcel was separate Government land was inconsistent with those records. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 12)
- Contentions denying the plot’s existence or reopening the earlier position were foreclosed by the February 2019 review judgment. Repeated inconsistent official positions and erroneous demarcation made further litigation inappropriate; Article 142 was used to identify and restore the actual land on these exceptional facts. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
Result
The application was disposed of. The second survey report was rejected and TS No. 19/P, marked PQRS, declared to be Survey No. 129/45/D. The Andhra Prabha allotment was set aside; the company was to deliver the land to the original appellants within eight weeks. Government was to refund its payments within twelve weeks with six per cent annual simple interest.