Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1453 (TS)

Mohan Rao v. Abul Qair Naseeruddin Kamran

2025-11-12

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. 1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 24.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10368 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner against the inaction of the appellant (the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) in failing to consider the representation dated 27.03.2024 made by the writ petitioner and sought for a direction on the respondents therein including the appellant (respondent No.8) to complete the proceedings pending under the repealed Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’). The direction, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, addressing unresolved issues concerning the lands in four Survey Numbers i.e., Sy.No.122/1 admeasuring Acs.10.21 gts., Sy.No.396/2 admeasuring Ac.1.16 gts., Sy.No.438 admeasuring Acs.17.22 gts. and Sy.No.396/4 admeasuring Acs.13.20 gts., which were not included in Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. 2. The writ petitioner/the respondent No.1 filed 2 I.As. (IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024) for interim directions on the respondents (including the appellant herein i.e., the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) against mutations or alteration of Revenue Records of the lands contained in the four survey numbers and to restrain the respondents from creating any third party interest in those lands. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by directing the appellant/the respondent No.8 – Competent Officer to dispose of Application No.1 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner or the predecessor in-interest or legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum, within a period of three months from the date of the impugned order and also imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- to be payable by the appellant/the respondent No.8 as they had failed to settle the dispute and dispose of the Application filed by the petitioner, even after the lapse of 25 years. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Counsel has taken us through the relevant provisions of the 1951 Act and the subsequent repeal and reinstatement thereof. We have also perused the notifications and communications with regard to the repeal. 5. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition, is the Competent Officer appointed by the State Government under section 4 of the 1951 Act vide G.O.M.S.No.1042, Revenue (L.A.) Department, dated 16.11.1991. We have also perused the notifications and communications with regard to the repeal. 5. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition, is the Competent Officer appointed by the State Government under section 4 of the 1951 Act vide G.O.M.S.No.1042, Revenue (L.A.) Department, dated 16.11.1991. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was represented before the learned Single Judge by his General Power of Attorney holder vide General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.2019. The Writ Petitioner claims to be the predecessor-in-interest of the lands in the four survey numbers which were classified as ‘Evacuee Property’ under the 1951 Act under the custodian of a Competent Officer who was appointed under the 1951 Act. 6. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner claims that the property was owned by one Nooruddin Hasan and Saifuddin Khalid, sons of Muneer Ahmed. A claim was initiated by Saleha Fatima Begum, daughter of Muneer Ahmed along with her sister and mother. The properties being recognized as Composite Properties with respective shares of the evacuees and non-evacuees being determined and established. The Competent Officer, entrusted with the custody of the properties, conducted their sale as authorised by section 10 of the 1951 Act and Saleha Fatima Begum made payment of Rs.38,415/-, consequent to which the lands were acquired by Saleha Fatima Begum through a Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. Although Saleha Fatima Begum became undisputed owner of the properties. It was later discovered that the Competent Officer omitted to include the lands in the four survey numbers were not included in the Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. Saleha Fatima Begum passed away on 27.06.1987. The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum submitted a representation to the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the Secretary to the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad on 05.11.1988 demanding that the lands in the four survey numbers be allotted to them in view of blatant omission in the Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. The Custodian and the Secretary issued orders dated 06.05.1989 in favour of the legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum affirming Saleha Fatima Begum’s ownership over lands in the four survey numbers. 7. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner states that certain third parties filed W.P.Nos.9229 and 9338 of 1989 challenging the orders issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the Secretary to Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records dated 06.05.1989. 7. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner states that certain third parties filed W.P.Nos.9229 and 9338 of 1989 challenging the orders issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the Secretary to Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records dated 06.05.1989. Vide the common order dated 01.11.1999, passed in the said two Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge quashed the Custodian’s order dated 06.05.1989 permitting the Writ Petitioners therein to seek appropriate recourse before a designated Competent Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 01.11.1999, legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum represented by the GPA-holder filed Writ Appeals which were dismissed on by upholding the common order dated 01.11.1999. During the course of the Writ Appeals, a Division Bench directed the legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum to approach the Competent Officer appointed by the State Government under section 4 of the 1951 Act and by G.O.Ms.No.1042, Revenue (LA) Department dated 16.11.1991. 8. The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum, thereafter made an Application (Application No.1 of 2000) dated 28.03.2000 to the appellant/the respondent No.8 (the Competent Officer) with a request for allotment of lands in the four survey numbers. In the said Application, the legal heirs filed an I.A. on 19.07.2002 for a direction on the Revenue Authorities not to mutate the names of the respondents therein in the Revenue Records and prohibiting the said respondents from altering the nature or physical features of the land. The Competent Officer passed an order on 19.07.2002 directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land until the main Application was resolved. 9. The above narrations of facts are based on the writ affidavit and are undisputed. These admitted facts have been narrated to provide the context to the grievance raised by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. 10. The grievance of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in the Writ Petition was the inaction on the part of the appellant/the respondent No.8 (the Competent Officer) with regard to hearing the respondent No.1/writ petitioners’ Application (Application No.1 of 2000) filed on 28.03.2000. The respondent No.1 states that the Competent Officer failed to take steps towards the final hearing of the matter since 07.11.2009 despite the father of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner regularly taking follow-up action in the matter until his death i.e., on 13.12.2017. 11. The respondent No.1 states that the Competent Officer failed to take steps towards the final hearing of the matter since 07.11.2009 despite the father of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner regularly taking follow-up action in the matter until his death i.e., on 13.12.2017. 11. As stated above, none of the facts have been disputed by the appellant/the respondent No.8. The only challenge to the impugned order is that the appellant was divested of his responsibility to proceed with the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s Application in view of the 1951 Act being repealed in 2005 by The Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’). 12. Counsel for the appellant/the respondent No.8 relies on a Notification dated 19.08.2010 to urge that the 2005 Act designated a Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as the Competent Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Counsel further submits that The Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 (‘the 2017 Act’) repealed the enactments specified in the First Schedule including The Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 , but did not revive or restore the jurisdiction of the appellant as the Competent Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Counsel concludes that the impugned order fails to notice that the appellant did not have the power to process the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s application after the 2005 Act came into force. 13. The stand taken by the appellant is disputed by counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Counsel places a series of Notifications and Communications to urge that the responsibility of the appellant, as the Competent Officer, continued and remained undisturbed notwithstanding the 2005 Act and the 2017 Act. 14. The arguments made on behalf of the appellant/the respondent No.8 and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner would be clarified from the list of documents annexed to the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The documents are as follows: (i) The appellant/respondent No.8 was appointed as the Competent Officer on 16.11.1991 under G.O.Ms.No.1042 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the 1951 Act. (ii) A Notification dated 19.08.2010, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighter and Rehabilitation (FFR) Division. The documents are as follows: (i) The appellant/respondent No.8 was appointed as the Competent Officer on 16.11.1991 under G.O.Ms.No.1042 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the 1951 Act. (ii) A Notification dated 19.08.2010, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighter and Rehabilitation (FFR) Division. The notification records the necessity of delegation in view of the 2005 Act not containing specific savings Clause and thus the provisions of section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 and also states, inter alia, that it had become necessary to delegate powers to the officers of Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to exercise powers under various provisions of the repealed Acts to enable them to dispose of pending claims, notwithstanding such Appeal. The notification also specifies that the Evacuee Property Cell is dealing with the properties situated in Delhi which is responsible for the management and disposal of Evacuee property as per the notification of August 2010 issued under The General Clauses Act. (iii) A communication issued by the Ministry of Supply & Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation), Government of India, dated 24.05.1980 to the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Hyderabad stating that the administration, management and disposal of the remaining undisposed of the acquired evacuee lands/properties and realization of arrears of rental demands outstanding against individuals in respect of evacuee properties in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been transferred the items of work to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for disposal of the residuary work in a satisfactory manner and for carrying out the purposes of The Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Communication further states that the number of cases is pending in relation to the Evacuee properties. The powers exercised by the Tribunals shall be delegated to the Officers of the State Government nominated in this behalf and the files pertaining to the litigation work will be handed over by a representative of the Rehabilitation Department at Hyderabad. The notification further mandates the State Government to appoint a Competent Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act to deal with the composite properties in respect of which the proceedings have already been started or may be started after the notification. The notification further mandates the State Government to appoint a Competent Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act to deal with the composite properties in respect of which the proceedings have already been started or may be started after the notification. The properties mentioned in the said notification shall be deemed to have been completely transferred from the Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 01.06.1980. (iv) A communication issued from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (FFR Division) dated 22.09.2008 to all the Chief Secretaries of the State and the Administrators of the Union Territories clarifying that the Repeal 2005 Act would not affect the disposal of a category of cases mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 3.1 by the State Government which would include unsatisfied verified claims filed under The Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 in which right has accrued or has been acquired and which were pending as on 06.09.2005 i.e., the date on which the 1954 Act and the other related Acts were repealed. The communication reiterates that settlement of pending matters can be taken up by the authorities prescribed under any State Laws that may have been enacted, since the subject stands transferred to the State Governments. (v) The Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (FFR Division) to all the Chief Secretaries of States/Administrators of UTs further dated 17.11.2016 clarifies that all the State Governments shall continue to decide the proceedings which were pending as on the date of the repeal and deal with the residuary works of administration, management and disposal of acquired evacuee properties transferred to the State Governments/UTs, under the 1954 Act and other related Acts as per the provisions of section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897. The communication clarifies that no fresh delegation of powers or revival of authority is required as the same revives automatically in the light of the Supreme Court’s order in UOI Vs. International Sindhi Panchayats & Ors dated 28.04.2014, upheld vide order dated 07.01.2016 passed in Review Petition No.3377 of 2015 which declared that section 6 of The General Clauses Act, is applicable to the Repeal Act of 2005 and that the State Governments shall continue to decide the cases pending as on the date of the Repeal Act, 2005. 15. International Sindhi Panchayats & Ors dated 28.04.2014, upheld vide order dated 07.01.2016 passed in Review Petition No.3377 of 2015 which declared that section 6 of The General Clauses Act, is applicable to the Repeal Act of 2005 and that the State Governments shall continue to decide the cases pending as on the date of the Repeal Act, 2005. 15. The series of documents placed on behalf of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner comprehensively dislodges the stand taken on behalf of the appellant. The notifications/communications reflect that the appellant, who was appointed as the Competent Officer under the G.O.Ms.No.1042 dated 16.11.1991 under section 4 of the 1951 Act, would continue to decide and settle the matters which were pending as on 06.09.2005 i.e., when the 1950 Act was repealed. The writ petitioner’s Application No.1 of 2000 was made on 28.03.2000 to the appellant/the respondent No.8 requesting for the allotment of lands in the four survey numbers. The writ petitioner’s I.A, for interim protection was filed before the appellant on 19.07.2002 meaning thereby that the appellant had the jurisdiction to hear the Application in 2000 and continued to have jurisdiction even after 2005. 16. Therefore, there is no conceivable reason as to why the appellant sat over the writ petitioner’s Application for 25 years without taking any action in terms of the 1951 Act or the related Acts for allotment and possession. Admittedly, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s Application has not progressed since 07.11.2009 and the appellant (the Competent Officer) has not taken up the matter for hearing. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was unable to follow the progress of the Application after the death of his father on 13.02.2017. 17. What is more shocking is the complete abdication of responsibility by the appellant/the respondent No.8 in sheepishly seeking shelter under the 2005 Act and arguing that the appellant was divested of the responsibility to decide the Application in view of the delegation made in favour of the Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. This argument is not only incorrect, as borne out from the documents placed on record by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, but unforgivably misleading and self-serving. The appellant does not have any credible answer to the notification dated 19.08.2010 which makes it clear that the delegation to the Officers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi was only with regard to Evacuee properties situated in Delhi. The appellant does not have any credible answer to the notification dated 19.08.2010 which makes it clear that the delegation to the Officers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi was only with regard to Evacuee properties situated in Delhi. It is clear that the appellant sought to rely on a selected part of the notification only to suit its purpose. The appellant also failed to disclose an earlier communication dated 24.05.1980 by which the residuary files relating to Evacuee properties were transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Officers nominated by the State Government. 18. The appellant’s argument fails altogether in view of the communication dated 22.09.2008 which mandated the State Government (undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and now Telangana) to settle the cases pending as on 06.09.2005 under the relevant State laws. In essence, the transfer of pending cases to the State Government was complete on and from 1980 and the appellant therefore was under a mandate to decide and settle the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s Application, pending since 28.03.2000, notwithstanding the repeal under the 2005 Act or the subsequent Act of 2017 or otherwise. It is also clear that the selected portion of the notification dated 19.08.2010 relied by the appellant was only for the purpose of the properties situated at New Delhi. 19. The Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 was enacted for the purpose of settling the property claims of persons who had been displaced during the partition and related strife in India. The object of the Act was to make special provisions for the separation of the interests of evacuees from those of other persons in property in which such other persons are also interested and for the matters connected therewith. By sitting over the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s Application for 25 years, the appellant has not only frustrated the object of the Act but also deprived two generations of the claimed owner/s of the lands in question and forced them to litigate before the Courts. The appellant simply does not have any defence to his inaction in hearing the Application. The very fact of the appellant challenging the impugned order whereby the appellant was only directed to dispose of the Application within three months from the date of the impugned order would reinforce the appellant’s absolute lack of commitment and empathy. 20. The appellant simply does not have any defence to his inaction in hearing the Application. The very fact of the appellant challenging the impugned order whereby the appellant was only directed to dispose of the Application within three months from the date of the impugned order would reinforce the appellant’s absolute lack of commitment and empathy. 20. The only reason that we have laboured to state the background facts is to highlight the helplessness of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in the face of the complete apathy of the appellant and the concerned functionaries in the State administration. It is truly startling that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner’s Application has been kept pending for 25 years and the appellant now seeks to disown his responsibility under the cover of repeal under the 2005 Act. 21. The shock expressed by the learned Single Judge and imposition of costs is fully justified. We may note that counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner exhibited his bona fides by requesting that the costs be paid to the Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, Telangana, instead of being paid to the writ petitioner. 22. Apart from holding that the Writ Appeal is completely misconceived, meritless and tainted with mala fides in misleading the Court, we also find no reason to interfere with the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge. The injury caused to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner by reason of the inaction of the appellant cannot be measured in monetary terms. Hence, the costs stand. The appellant shall pay the costs to the Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, Telangana within two weeks from today. The appellant shall dispose of the application within four weeks from today. 23. W.A.No.1200 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.