Salam Khanam 4 Ors, vs The Union Of India 8 Ors,
2022 Latest Caselaw 660 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                     AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



                WRIT APPEAL No.1000 of 2008

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      The present appeal is arising out of an order dated

18.06.2007     passed        by    the     learned        Single      Judge   in

W.P.No.12610 of 2007.

      The facts of the case reveal that the appellants/writ

petitioners, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs and

successors of M/s.Mir Hassan Ali, Mirza Mohammed Baig,

Smt. Haneefa Bibi and Smt. Putli Bibi, came up before this

Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction directing the

respondents State as well as Union of India to release the

subject land. It was stated by the appellants/writ petitioners

that the erstwhile Nizam granted land to the predecessors of

the appellants/writ petitioners in Muntakhan No.529/1927

Fasli as inam in respect of land admeasuring Acs.671.02

guntas in various survey numbers situated at Ferozeguda

Village. It was also stated before the learned Single Judge

that the grantees were in possession of the land except the

land leased out, vide lease deed No.1154, dated 8th Rabi-Us-

Sani 1303 Hirji, to Sardar Dilawar-Ud-Dhoula Bahadur for

development of land for civic habitation. It has been further

stated that in the year 1929 the Defence Department under

British regime occupied the land for New Rifle Range and

Musket practices for temporary use. The occupancy

continued till 1951. The facts further reveal that the Special

Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) initiated land acquisition

proceedings for acquiring Acs.139.19 guntas for defence

purpose and Acs.123.12 guntas for research and development

wing of BHEL and compensation was paid to the landowners

in respect of the land acquired. The appellants'/writ

petitioners' grievance is that the land admeasuring

Acs.323.31 guntas was not acquired and an extent of

Acs.70.00 is still under their ownership. The undisputed

facts make it very clear that earlier also a writ petition was

preferred i.e., W.P.No.6020 of 1992, which was dismissed and

in spite of dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the

appellants/writ petitioners have preferred the second writ

petition.

The facts of the case further reveal that the entire land

was occupied by the defence department in the year 1929.

The land was acquired in the year 1951 and the

appellants/writ petitioners received compensation. The

matter was agitated before the learned District Judge,

Hyderabad, for enhancement of compensation and the appeal

i.e., A.S.No.11 of 1957 was disposed of on 01.11.1963.

Thereafter, the matter was not subjected to further appeal.

The earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.6020 of 1992 was

dismissed on 17.09.2002 holding that the land stood vested

with the respondents therein since 1926 itself.

This Court has carefully gone though the order passed

by the learned Single Judge and the fact remains that the

appellants/writ petitioners are making unsuccessful attempts

again and again in respect of the same land, which was the

subject matter of the earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.6020 of

1992, which was dismissed on 17.09.2002. The learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

15.02.2022 vs