Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 384 (TS)

Ishaq Akbar Khan v. State of Telangana

2025-04-22

P.SREE SUDHA, T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) This Writ Petition is a classic case of the State depriving a citizen from enjoying the fruits of the order obtained through judicial process in respect of a subject matter, for which State itself had brought about a special enactment viz., A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. 2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.5, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.6, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the unofficial respondents and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that their father during his life time had initiated proceedings under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Special Court constituted thereunder, to declare the unofficial respondents mentioned therein as land grabbers as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, by filing a case vide LGC No.126/1995, in respect of the schedule property admeasuring Acres 31.25 guntas in survey No.43/1, 44/1 and 45/1 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District (hereinafter referred to as ‘LGC schedule property’); that the Special Court by judgment, dt.31.12.1997, had allowed the LGC.No.126/1995, wherein the unofficial respondents were declared as land grabbers; that the said order has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order, dt.15.06.2009 in WP.No.5440 of 1998; and that the order of Special Court having attained finality, the land which has been grabbed by the unofficial respondents has not been repossessed by the respondents and transmitted to the petitioners. 4. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the Special Court passing the order in LGC.No.126/1995 declaring the unofficial respondents as land grabbers and challenge to the said order before this Court in WP.No.5440 of 1998 resulting in dismissal, the petitioners approached the Special Court to declare the action of the respondents in causing delay in executing the orders in LGC.No.126/1995 by filing an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.320/2010; that the Special Court had passed order, dt.23.03.2010, directing the respondents-authorities to execute the order in LGC No.126/1995; that on the respondents failing to comply with the order of the Special Court in IA.No.320/2010, the petitioners had approached this Court once-again by filing Writ Petition No.5711 of 2011; and that this Court by considering the facts of the case, by its order dt.07.04.2011 directed the official respondents to execute, faithfully and expeditiously the order of the Special Court, dt.31.12.1997 in LGC No.126/1995 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that despite this Court directing the official respondents to give effect to the order of the Special Court in LGC No.126/1995 by executing the same within the time frame, the same remains to be unexecuted till date, thereby the petitioners’ father who instituted the aforesaid proceedings under the special enactment against the unofficial respondents could not enjoy the fruits of the order obtained by him during his life time. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the Special Court passing the order, dt.31.12.1997 in LGC No.126/1995, an interlocutory application vide IA.No.1001 of 2009, was filed and the Special Court by order dt.17.11.2009, permitted the order in LGC.No.126/1995 to be executed only against the retainable extent and rejecting execution against surplus extent of land of the petitioners, claiming that the said land is governed by the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; and that aggrieved thereby the petitioners had approached this Court once-again by filing a writ petition vide WP.No.26022/2009, which was allowed by this Court on 02.03.2010. 7. 7. It is further contended by the petitioners that aggrieved by the said order of this Court in WP.No.26022/2009, the unofficial respondent Nos.148, 368 & a third party had approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14596 of 2011, and the Apex Court by its order dt.27.07.2015 had remanded the matter back to the High Court with a direction to decide the same afresh after hearing all the contesting parties; that pursuant to the aforesaid remand by the Apex Court, the writ petition vide W.P.No.26022/2009 was once-again heard by a Division Bench of this Court; and that the Division Bench taking note of the fact that the petitioners’ father i.e., the original petitioner, having succeeded in LGC No.126/1995 vide order dt.31.12.1997, and that the writ petition filed vide WP.No.5440/1998 by 234 unofficial respondents in the LGC questioning the order of the Special Court having dismissed on 15.06.2009, the said judgment having attained finality, continues to operate, allowed the said writ petition by order dt.13.04.2018 holding that the order of the Special Court in IA.No.1001/2009 restricting the execution of the order in LGC No.126/1995, dt.31.12.1997 to only 1000 sq. mtrs, is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside the same. The Division Bench further held that the petitioners are entitled to take recourse to such legal measures as are available to them to effectuate the said judgment in LGC No.126/1995 in order to recover possession of the LGC schedule property. 8. Petitioner further contends that despite the petitioners having succeeded before the Special Court in getting the unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 645 therein declared as land grabbers under the special enactment; that the said order of Special Court having attained finality; and despite this Court passing orders directing the respondents-authorities to execute the order of the Special Court, dt.31.12.1997, no steps are taken to execute the order of the Special Court till date, in spite of the petitioner approaching the respondents- authorities periodically by submitting representations, which action of the respondents it is contended would only goes to show that the respondents-authorities have no intention or inclination to execute the order in LGC No.126/1995 by taking possession of the LGC schedule property and transmitting the same to the petitioners. 9. 9. It is also contended by the petitioners that though the respondents-authorities in order to execute the order of the Special Court had claimed of the petitioners requiring to make payment of amount in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act, the said Rule having been held to be discriminatory by a Division Bench of this Court, a duty is cast on the respondents-authorities to take steps to recover possession from the persons, who have grabbed the LGC schedule property of the petitioners by exercising power conferred on them and to transmit the same to the petitioners. 10. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of official respondents as well as some of the unofficial respondents, are filed. 11. The official respondents by their counter affidavits claim that in the LGC schedule property of the petitioners, there are more than 1000 families residing and taking any steps to dispossess them would result in law and order situation; that the respondents authorities are required to employ various resources to execute the order of the Special Court to recover possession, for which the petitioners are required to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs; and that as the petitioners had failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, the authorities could not take any action for executing the order of the Special Court in LGC No.126/1995. 12. On behalf of some of the unofficial respondents, by filing counter affidavit, it is contended that since, the order LGC No.126/1995 having been remained unimplemented all through this period and the Act has been repealed vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Revenue (Land Matters) Department, dt.01.06.2016, the petitioners have to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for seeking execution of the order of the Special Court in terms of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), and no relief can be granted in the present writ petition. 13. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 14. As noted in the first instance, a citizen who has set in motion the judicial process is being deprived of enjoying the fruits of his success due to the inaction and indifferent approach adopted by the respondents-authorities in implementing the orders of the Court. 13. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 14. As noted in the first instance, a citizen who has set in motion the judicial process is being deprived of enjoying the fruits of his success due to the inaction and indifferent approach adopted by the respondents-authorities in implementing the orders of the Court. It is not difficult for this Court to discern the reason for respondents- authorities not taking measures for implementation of the order passed by the Special Court on 31.12.1997 in LGC No.126/1995, which had attained finality. 15. Though on behalf of the official respondents it is contended that there are about 1000 families living in the LGC schedule property and any action by the respondents-authorities would give rise to law and order situation, it is to be noted that the said statement is being made by the State by the counter affidavit filed in reply to the present writ petition filed in the year 2019, without noting that when the petitioners’ father had initiated proceedings under the Act initially before the Special Court, the position would have been different. 16. If only the authorities had commitment to execute the order of the Special Court in LGC No.126/1995, on the same being passed on 31.12.1997, notwithstanding the fact that some of the persons, who were declared as land grabbers in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act having approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide WP.No.5440/1998, the least the authorities could have done is to place the subject land under prohibitory list of properties, which power is vested with the authorities in terms of Section 17 of the Act, thereby preventing further alienations of the LGC schedule property by the persons, who have grabbed the LGC schedule property. 17. Admittedly, no such action has been taken by the respondent- State and on the other hand, now the respondents-authorities plead of any action being taken would result in law and order situation. 18. If a State, with enforcement machinery under its control, takes the plea of their actions may give rise to law and order situation, such a submission has to be considered as the State lacking determination to take stern action, for which it had made an enactment, and the measures under the enactment are only on paper without being implemented/enforced on ground. 19. 19. Further, it is also to be noted that this Court in WP.No.5711 of 2011 having directed the respondents-authorities to take steps to implement the order of the Special Court in LGC No.126/1995 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order in the said writ petition, and the authorities having failed to implement the said order and also not approaching this Court seeking extension of time, as noted herein above, would only go to show that the State did not intended to take any steps to recover whatever extent of land of the petitioners grabbed by various people. This Court perceives such inaction by the respondents-authorities as is only intended to appease the land grabbers and not to annoy/upset them. 20. If only, the State intended not to appease the said grabbers by not evicting them from the land grabbed by them, the State could have protected such illegal act by regularizing the same in their favour by acquiring the land of the petitioners. 21. The State did not even undertake the aforesaid exercise. On the other hand, the State by their concerned authorities have only rhetorically pleaded that giving effect to the order would result in displacement of 1000 families, thereby resulting in law and order situation. 22. Though it is sought to be contended that on account of the order passed in LGC No.126/1995 remaining unimplemented, the petitioner is required to seek execution in terms of the provisions of CPC, it is to be noted that since, the order of this Court in WP.No.5711/2011, whereby the respondents-authorities were directed to take steps to execute the order in LGC No.126/1995 within a period of three (03) weeks and the said order having attained finality, non-compliance with the said order by the respondents- authorities itself would amount to an act of respondents being in contempt of the said order. 23. Further, since, this Court having passed an order in WP.No.5711/2011 directing for execution, it cannot also be said that a proceeding is pending before any Court for execution on the date of repealing order for it to stand transferred to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the property as claimed now by the respondents. 24. 23. Further, since, this Court having passed an order in WP.No.5711/2011 directing for execution, it cannot also be said that a proceeding is pending before any Court for execution on the date of repealing order for it to stand transferred to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the property as claimed now by the respondents. 24. It is also to be noted that non-implementation of the order, be it the order of the Special Court in LGC.No.126/1995 or the order of this Court in WP.No.5711/2011, cannot be equated with the order of the Special Court remaining unimplemented, for which the petitioners are required to approach the concerned Civil Court seeking its execution. It is highly unfathomable that for execution of an order of High Court, a citizen would be required to approach the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 25. Thus, the said contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners should take steps for execution in terms of the provisions of CPC, thereby meaning initiating steps under Order XXI of CPC, in the considered view of this Court is only intended to further deny the petitioners of enjoying the fruits of the judgment obtained by their father during his life time in the year 1997, so that it can be dragged on for further years only to be passed to the next generation of the petitioners. Thus, the contention advanced cannot be permitted/allowed, as any such direction or order would only result in deprivation of justice to the petitioners. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the direction as issued by this Court in WP.No.5711/2011 needs to reaffirmed, once-again, by allowing the present Writ Petition. 27. Thus, the contention advanced cannot be permitted/allowed, as any such direction or order would only result in deprivation of justice to the petitioners. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the direction as issued by this Court in WP.No.5711/2011 needs to reaffirmed, once-again, by allowing the present Writ Petition. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents-authorities to take steps as noted hereunder: i) to execute the order in LGC No.126/1995, dt.31.12.1997, by taking possession of the LGC schedule property and transmitting the same to the petitioners, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; ii) in the event of the respondents unable to take possession of the LGC schedule property and transmit it to the petitioners as noted hereinabove, the State of Telangana represented by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department-1 st respondent herein, shall initiate proceedings thereafter for acquiring the LGC schedule land of the petitioners and pay compensation in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within the period prescribed thereunder. 28. In view of the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to impose exemplary costs against the State. Hence, the 1 st respondent is directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) to the petitioners within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 29. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.