Telangana High Court
M. Sowmya Sowmya vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.254 and 255 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm, for the appellants in both the writ appeals.
Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents No.1 to 5 in both the writ appeals.
Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in W.A.No.254 of 2024.
Mr. V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in W.A.No.255 of 2024.
2
2. These intra court appeals emanate from a common order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.28677 and 31353 of 2023.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the land bearing Survey Nos.9, 11, 47, 140, 141, 142, 143, 151, 152, 153, 676 and 677 measuring Acs.90.08 guntas situated at Kapra Village in the erstwhile Medchal Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the "subject land") originally belonged to the evacuees who migrated to Pakistan during partition. However, the subject land was allotted to various allottees, who had migrated from Pakistan under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The subject land, vide notification dated 11.12.1952, was declared to be evacuee property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Evacuee Property Act"). Thereafter, the subject land was acquired under 3 Section 12 of the Act for the purposes of rehabilitation of the persons who were displaced during the partition.
4. The Tahsildar, vide communication dated 29.06.1966, auctioned the subject land on an yearly basis which was challenged by one Sri Mandal Anjaiah, claiming to be the predecessor-in-title, in W.P.No.1051 of 1966, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.06.1968, inter alia, on the ground that the claim of the legal heirs of Mandal Bucham is belated and there is an alternative remedy under the Evacuee Property Act. Some portion of the subject land was allotted to Sri Gopaldas and Sri Jangimal on 15.09.1968 and to Sri Mathuradas on 21.11.1968. The legal representatives filed revision under Section 27 of the Evacuee Property Act in which the validity of the notification dated 11.12.1952 was assailed. The aforesaid revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Custodian-cum-Collector to re-determine the evacuee nature of the subject land. The Custodian- cum-Deputy Collector, vide communication dated 28.05.1979, concluded that one Mandal Bucham and his 4 legal heirs are the owners of the subject land. The aforesaid order was challenged in a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property under the Act, which was allowed by an order dated 11.05.1983 and the order dated 28.05.1979 was set aside and the subject land was once again declared as evacuee property.
5. The legal representatives of the aforesaid Mandal Bucham assailed the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.7517 of 1983, which was dismissed by an order dated 26.07.1988. Thereupon, the legal representatives filed another writ petition, namely W.P.No.17722 of 1990, in which a direction was sought to conduct survey of the subject land. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 27.04.2000 and the order dated 11.05.1983 was set aside and the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 28.05.1979 was restored. One Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others assailed the said order in civil appeals, namely Civil Appeal 5 Nos.4099, 4100 and 4101 of 2000 and 3949 of 2011, against one M.Prabhakar and others. The Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 05.05.2011, set aside the order dated 27.04.2000 passed by the High Court and declared the notification issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act dated 11.12.1952 to be valid and it was further held that the evacuee property was acquired by the Central Government.
6. During the pendency of the special leave petitions, the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.21342 of 2003, seeking to restrain the revenue authorities from interfering with the possession of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 14.10.2003. The said order was challenged in W.A.No.2012 of 2003, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25.11.2003.
6
7. Thereafter, one Mandal Vinay Kumar Goud, vendor of the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023, filed O.S.No.225 of 2018 against the said petitioner and the members of the family of the predecessor-in-title in respect of the subject land which ended in compromise in Lok Adalat vide award dated 21.01.2019. The petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 thereafter filed an execution petition, which was dismissed on 31.01.2020 as the award was not engrossed on requisite stamp papers. The petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 has complied with the objections and resubmitted the execution petition. The executing court dismissed the same vide docket order dated 25.08.2022.
8. The petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 challenged the aforesaid order C.M.A.No.393 of 2022, which was allowed on 02.09.2022 and the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the executing court was set aside. The petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 thereafter filed execution petitions, namely E.P.Nos.2185 and 2186 of 2022. During the pendency of the execution proceeding, the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 filed E.A.No.459 of 7 2022 in E.P.No.2185 of 2022 seeking police protection. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 lodged a complaint following which Crl.M.P.No.517 of 2023 was filed seeking to direct the police to act on the complaint, which was allowed by an order dated 06.06.2023. Since no action was taken on the complaint submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023, the said writ petition was filed.
9. The appellants filed another writ petition, namely W.P.No.31353 of 2023, seeking a direction to the police authorities not to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the subject land.
10. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 29.02.2024, disposed of the writ petitions by which the petitioners in W.P.No.31353 of 2023 were relegated to file an application in execution proceedings. However, it was directed that pending decision of the execution proceedings, the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 8 should be provided police protection. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the appellants are aggrieved only insofar as it pertains to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to providing police protection to the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 pending adjudication.
12. On the other hand, both the learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondent fairly submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 has filed a petition seeking police protection, which is pending adjudication before the executing court.
13. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
14. The learned Single Judge, in view of the nature of the dispute involved between the parties, has rightly relegated the parties to file appropriate applications in the execution 9 proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that the application, namely E.A.No.459 of 2022 in E.P.No.2185 of 2022, has already been filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 before the executing court seeking police protection. The aforesaid application is admittedly pending before the executing court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing that the interim order dated 12.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 shall continue till the execution petition is decided and thereby render the application, namely E.A.No.459 of 2022, infructuous.
15. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it directs that the interim order dated 12.10.2023 granting police protection to the petitioner in W.P.No.28677 of 2023 shall continue till executing court decides the execution proceedings is set aside. The petitioners in W.P.No.31353 of 2023 have rightly been relegated to file an appropriate application in the pending execution proceedings.
10
16. To the aforesaid extent, the common order dated 29.02.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.28677 and 31353 of 2023 is modified.
17. In the result, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 08.04.2024 vs