TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition) Act, (for short referred to as the Special Court) in L.G.C. Nos. 17 and 114 of 1999 and 28 of 2002 (for short 'the common order') and common questions arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The first three writ petitions i.e., 15679, 15697 and 16120 of 2005 are filed by the State, having aggrieved by the common orders dismissing L.G.C. Nos. 17 and 114 of 1999 filed by the State and in allowing L.G.C. No. 28 of 2002, whereas, W.P. No. 26448 of 2005 was filed by the respondents 2 to 9 in L.G.C. No. 17 of 1999, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the observations of the Special Court made in the common order with reference to L.G.C. No. 17 of 1999 to the effect that the respondents 1 to 8 therein, whereas the first of them is the first applicant in LGC. No. 28 of 2002 got only possessory title and the observations made with regard to Ex.C.8 sale deed, as illegal and contrary to law. 3. The State through its Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet village, Hyderabad filed L.G.C. No. 17 of 1999 for declaring the respondents therein who are the petitioners in W.P. No. 26448 of 2005 as land grabbers of the property scheduled therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules framed under the Act and submit a compliance report to this Court within two months, after expiry of the above said two moths period granted to the first respondent to deliver vacant possession of the property to the applicants. The application against respondents 2 and 3 is dismissed. No costs. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents therein i.e., Smt A Saritha Reddy and another also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6171 of 2005 and the same is pending. 7. The basis for the Government to file L.G.C. Nos. 17 and 114 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court is as follows: The Shaikpet village of Hyderabad district was formerly a Sarfekhas village and all the Sarfekhas were merged in the Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 A.D) and the administration of the village was transferred and vested with the Government making over all the relevant records to the Government thereafter. The initial survey of Shaikpet village commenced in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) and it was implemented in 1330 Fasli (1920 AD). The Survey No. 129 measuring an extent of Ac. 3288.02 guntas which is popularly known as 'Kanch Tatti Khana', was classified as Government land. In 1331 Fasli, a Supplemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification is construed as the Evacuee Property and vested with the Government. Further, relevant Revenue records are also to the same effect. Thus/it is the case of the Government that Mr. M. Aziz Asif S/o Liaquath Ali Jung is an evacuee and all the properties owned by him before he migrated to Pakistan, automatically transferred to the Government of India as Evacuee Properties and they cannot be claimed by any private individual on the basis of any documents. Further, the Government claims that R. Koteswar Rao, the vendor of the respondents got corrected his name in the T.S.L.R. by colluding with the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad and created a fictitious sale deed to show, as if he purchased the said property from Mr. Aziz Asif and accordingly his name was wrongly entered in the TSLR by the same authority and further he sold away the valuable Government land to several individuals spurious and concocted documents taking advantage of difference in the names of the fathers of the evacuee and the other named Mr. Aziz Asif. 8. The case of the respondents/claimants is as follows: They are the vendees of Koteshwar Rao, who purchased the said propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties, Hyderabad and further there was no scope to give any such notification after 7.5.1954 in terms of Section 7-A of the Evacuee Properties Act. According to him, the notification No. 26/51 dated 22.5.1951 issued by the Deputy Custodian and Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District was not in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, 1950. Further, as the respondents are the bonafide purchasers of the property for a valid consideration and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it since more than the statutory period of 30 years and have perfected their title over the property by adverse possession, they cannot be declared as the land grabbers of the property and cannot be evicted therefrom. The learned counsel Sri P. Sri Raghuram has placed reliance in support of his contentions, the following decisions: 1. Mohd. Ali Hasan Khan and Others v. Bhagirathlal and Others AIR 1964 AP 126. 2. Delhi Administration and Others v. Madan Lal Nangia and Others AIR 2003 SC 4672. 11. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submits that the Act, 1950 is to administer the Evacuee Property in accordance with the provisions contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the first letter dated 28.8.1950. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence that the properties of M. Aziz Asif were declared as evacuee properties, which completely demolishes the claim of the Government. The Government filed notification No. 26/51 dated 22.5.1951 (Ex.A1) published in the Gazette - Ordinary in Vol.82 Hyderabad dated 21.6.1951 with regards to the Office of Deputy Custodian and Collector, Sangareddy, Medak district declaring the properties of Aziz Asif as Evacuee property. The notification for the sake of convenience, is extracted as follows; By virtue of the powers vested in me as Deputy Custodian, I hereby declare under Section 7(1) and (2) read with Section 2d of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, XXXI of 1959, that the following properties are the evacuee properties within the terms of the said Act and therefore vest in me. All the properties of Mr. Aziz Asif S/o Likat Jung, lands measuring 21 Acres 28 guntas with an assessment of Rs. 10 situated in Parkibanda village of Narsapur taluq of Medak district and any other property of the evacuee not included in this list which any have been inadvertently left out of the same. Sd/- Collector an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny way, except with the leave of the Custodian and no person shall be capable of taking any benefit from such transfer or charge except with such leave. (3) The Custodian shall, from time to time, notify, either by publication in the Official Gazette or in such other manner as may be prescribed, all properties declared by him to be evacuee properties under sub section (1) 7-A : Property not to be declared evacuee property on or after 7th May 1954 3 (a) [a] Inserted by the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1954 (42 of 1954), S. 4 (w.r.e.f. 7-5-1954).[ Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no property shall be declared to be evacuee property on or after the 7th day of May, 1954: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to- (a) any property in respect of which proceedings are pending on the 7th day of May, 1954 for declaring such property to be evacuee property; and (b) the property of any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances had left on or after the 1st day of March, 1947, any place now forming part of India, and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of this Act and shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have been appointed for the State under this Act, and shall continue to so vest : Provided that where at the commencement of this Act there is pending before the High Court, the Custodian or any other authority for or in any State any-proceeding under (Section 8) or (S. 30 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949), or under any other corresponding law repealed by the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (27 of 1949), then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, such proceeding shall be disposed of as if the definitions of evacuee property' and 'evacuee' contained in (Section 2) of this Act had become applicable thereto. 3 (a) [a] Inserted and deemed always to have been inserted by the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act (1 of 1960), S. 2.[(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (2), all property which under any law repealed hereby purports to have veste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vacuee properties under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1950. Under Section 7-A of the Act, no property should be declared to be an evacuee property on or after 7.5.1954, except the properties in respect of which relevant proceedings were pending by that day. However, six months grace period was granted to declare such properties as Evacuee property. Under Section 8 of the Act, such Evacuee Properties would vest in the Custodian. The Act, 1950 is a complete code by itself in dealing with the Evacuee properties in the manner prescribed therein. The Rules made thereunder known as The Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 deals with the manner of conducting enquiry, making notification etc., and declaring such properties as Evacuee property. Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1950 prescribes the manner of inquiry. If any person is in illegal occupation of such property, the Rules also contemplate for their eviction and management thereon etc. In terms of Rule 9 (iii) The Custodian should also maintain a Register of properties containing the particulars such as, Name of the owner, Description of property, Name of the person against whom the warrant was to be executed, Date of issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Therefore, a person who is lawfully entitled to be in the possession of such property can take necessary recourse accordingly when it was grabbed illegally by another. Further, the second proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 8 provides that where the custodian of evacuee property objects to the special Court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further with the case in regard to such property. Therefore, the custodian of an evacuee property is given power to stall such proceedings initiated by another under the Act from which it can be inferred that when the property is grabbed by another, he would have right to take steps to declare him as the land grabber of the property being a person lawfully entitled to be in the lawful possession of the property as-its custodian. 17. In Mohd. Ali Hasan Khan's v. Bhagirathlal (supra), it was held: It is not the object of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act to make the Government or the Custodian proprietor or the owner of the property declared as evacuee property. Notwithstanding such a declaration, the property shall continue to be the property of the evacuee and the vesting thereof in the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property at the instance of the Government, does not arise. On the other hand, the respondents also failed to establish the identity of the vendor of Koteswara Rao and also their ownership over the property producing necessary documentary evidence, which is not important unless the Government proves his claim at the outset. 21. Further, the Special Court, having held that the subject property is not the Government land or an Evacuee property, it ought not to have held also that the respondents acquired possessory title over the property in the circumstances enumerated. Whether the respondents have obtained the possessory title by adverse possession or by any other means is unnecessary in a matter dealing with an application filed by the Government, more so, when the Government failed to establish its right, title or authority in claiming the subject property as its own. 22. In the result, W.P. Nos. 15679, 15697, 16120 and 26448 of 2005 are dismissed. However, it is to be noted that the dismissal of W.P. No. 15697 of 2005 is only in respect of the claim of the Government and it shall not have any effect on the rival claims among the private parties in the L.G.C. No. 28 of 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
