Telangana High Court

Smt Shahnaz Begum , Bader Shaheen vs Special Deputy. Collector on 31 October, 2023

Bench: K. Sarath

                                1
                                                          SK,J
                                            CRP.No.704 of 2021


         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.704 of 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order

dated 06.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1223 of 2017 in

L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the X Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereby

the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to

permit the petitioners/proposed claimants to be

impleaded as claimant Nos.38, 39 and 40 in

L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the

petitioners. Sri Mohd. Ilyas, learned Counsel for

respondent Nos.13, 17 to 20, 22 to 24, 26, 28, 29, 33,

36 and 37, Sri Shryas Reddy Yalagari, learned Counsel

for respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Mohd. Nasrullah Khan,

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

learned Counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11. Perused

the record.

3. The brief facts are that after the death of one

Abdul Raheem, his 1st wife and her children have filed

suit in O.S.No.272 of 1989 for partition against one

Syed Jaffar Ali and the second wife and her children of

late Abdul Raheem. The said Syed Jaffar Ali and late

Abdul Raheem are brothers. The son of first wife of

Syed Jaffar Ali, by name Syed Azeem, is the 8th

defendant in the suit. The said suit was partly decreed

on 06.07.1991. Against the said decree and judgment,

the 2nd defendant-Syed Jaffar Ali filed C.C.C.A.No.52 of

1991 before this Court. After the death of said Syed

Jaffar Ali, his first wife and her children were brought

on record, but they did not make the 1st petitioner

herein and her two sons being 2nd wife and the children

of late Syed Jaffar Ali as parties in the appeal. In the

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

proceedings of final decree, the 1st petitioner and her

two sons were added as respondent Nos.11,12 and 13

before the trial Court in I.A.Nos.184 of 1991, I.A.No.102

of 1994 and I.A.No.101 of 1994, which are the subject

matter of revision before this Court and decided in

common judgment along with C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991.

The said appeal was dismissed confirming the

Judgment of the Court below vide Judgment and

Decree dated 20.09.2016. A cross appeal preferred by

the 2nd wife and her children of late Abdul Raheem

claiming 59 shares out of 160 shares was allowed. This

Court in C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991 has declared the shares

of the parties. A part of the premises in item No.4 of the

suit schedule property i.e. H.No.6-3-921 to 923, which

is on the main road of Khairatabad, Hyderabad

admeasuring about 198.23 sq. yards was acquired by

the Hyderabad Metro Rail Authority through acquisition

proceedings and the compensation of Rs.2,90,98,556/-

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

is payable to the said acquired land, but due to

pendency of the appeal as to rights and shares, the

L.A.O. has deposited the said compensation amount to

the credit of Civil Court, Hyderabad in L.A.O.P.No.320

of 2017. The case of the petitioners is that though their

names were appeared in the cause title of the Judgment

in revision as wife and sons of late Jafar Ali, they were

not served with any notice and they were not impleaded

as parties in C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991. As item No.4 of

the suit schedule property was acquired by the Land

Acquisition Officer and the compensation was

deposited, the petitioners are entitled to the shares as

per Muslim Personal Law. Therefore, the petitioners

filed the petition to implead them as claimant Nos.38,

39 and 40 in L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017.

4. The respondents/claimant Nos.1 to 5 filed counter

before the Court below stating that the shares of the

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

parties were adjudicated by the Civil Court and

therefore, the question of adjudicating the rights of

third parties does not arise and the petitioners were not

parties in O.S.No.272 of 1989 and as such they are

third parties to the suit. Moreover the decree passed by

the trial Court in O.S.No.272 of 1989 was confirmed by

this Court determining the shares.

5. The Court below having observed that the

petitioners/proposed claimants were not parties to the

partition suit in O.S.No.272 of 1989 and as the

claimants, who are not satisfied with the award passed

by the Land Acquisition Officer, made a reference only

for enhancement of the compensation, the petitioners

cannot be impleaded as necessary parties and

dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners filed the present revision.

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

the Court below failed to implead the petitioners as

legal representatives of the deceased Syed Jaffar Ali to

which the reference was made under the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2014 (for short

'the Act'). He submits that the Court below erred in

holding that the revision petitioners are not parties to

the suit in O.S.No.272 of 1989, which was decided

finally in C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991. He submits that as the

other parties to the proceedings did not bring the

petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant

and by suppressing it, they have obtained the decree,

the petitioners filed the present petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further

submits that the Court below erred in holding that the

reference was made to the Court for enhancement of

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

compensation instead of apportionment of the money.

He submits that as the petitioners are legal heirs of the

deceased Syed Jaffar Ali, they are liable to be impleaded

as claimant Nos.38, 39 and 40 in L.A.O.P.No.320 of

2016 and he requested to allow the revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on

the judgment of this Court in Polaki Rsojamani and

others vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakonda and

others 1.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondents submits that as the petitioners were not

parties in the partition suit in O.S.No.272 of 1989, they

are third parties to the claim and the shares of the

parties were already adjudicated by the Civil Court and

the same was also confirmed by this Court.

1997(6) ALD 511

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that

one late Ayesha Bi was blessed with two sons namely

Syed Jaffar Ali and Syed Raheem and after demise of

late Ayesha Bi, his two sons were enjoyed all the

properties jointly including the subject property under

the LAOP. He submits that after demise of Syed

Raheem, his successors i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 11

were not allowed to participate in the family business

which resulted in institution of partition suit in

O.S.No.272 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Chief

Judge-cum-II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

He submits that the father of respondent No.13 i.e.

Syed Jaffar Ali has claimed exclusive rights over the

subject properties in the O.P., as his exclusive property

under the Benami Act, but the same was rejected and

against the same, he preferred C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991

before this Court and the same was dismissed

confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.272 of

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

1989, but the cross appeal preferred by the

respondents was allowed. He submits that the

petitioners being aware of all these proceedings, they

did not take steps to implead as parties in the partition

suit or the appeal.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents further

submits that the self acquired properties of Syed Jaffer

Ali at Bidar, Karnata were settled exclusively in favour

of the petitioners as such they did not claim any share

in the properties situated at Hyderabad and the

petitioners have not approached the Referring Officer to

claim any share in the property acquired by them when

the other parties have filed their respective

claims/objections and the petitioners have no locus

standi to claim any share in the properties and

requested to dismiss the revision petition.

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

12. During pendency of the present revision, the

petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to bring on

record the legal representatives of respondent No.27

i.e., Amina Begum as respondent Nos.39 to 45 and also

filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to bring on record the legal

representatives of respondent No.12 i.e, Syed Azeem as

respondent Nos.46 to 51 in the revision. In these two

I.As., this Court ordered notice and the notices were

sent to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent

Nos.12 and 27, but the same were returned un-served

on the ground that 'insufficient address'. At the time of

arguments, learned counsels appearing for both sides

submit that they have received information that the

legal representatives of respondent Nos.12 and 27 are

not in India and they are formal parties in the revision.

The petitioners are not pressing for any relief against

the deceased respondent Nos.12 and 27. In view of the

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed against

the respondent Nos.12 and 27 as abated.

13. At the time of arguments, the petitioner filed a

memo dated 18.10.2023 stating that the revision

petitioner No.1-Smt Shahnaz Begum @ Bader Shaheen

w/o. Late Jafar Ali died on 14.12.2020 and her legal

heirs are already on record as revision petitioner Nos.2

and 3 and requested to treat them as legal heirs of

petitioner No.1. In view of the same, the petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are treated as legal heirs of the petitioner

No.1 in this revision petition.

14. After hearing both sides and perused the record,

this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners

herein being legal heirs of late Syed Jaffar Ali as his

second wife and children to be impleaded as claimant

Nos.38, 39 and 40 in L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017 pending

before the Court below. The said application was

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the

petitioners were not parties to the partition suit in

O.S.No.272 of 1989 and the reference is only for

enhancement of the compensation, the petitioners do

not become necessary parties and they are not entitled

to be impleaded as parties in L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017.

The contesting respondents in the present Civil

Revision Petition are not disputing the relationship

between the petitioners and late Syed Jaffar Ali, but

they disputed that the petitioners were not impleaded

as legal heirs in C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991 and already

they have been enjoying their shares at Bidar,

Karnataka State exclusively given to them by late Syed

Jaffar Ali.

15. The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition

Officer, Metro Rail Project, GHMC, Hyderabad in his

proceedings No.C1/307/2013 dated 05.05.2015 has

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

declared that there is a title dispute in respect of the

acquired land and therefore, the matter was referred to

the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for adjudication and

accordingly, compensation amount was deposited in the

Civil Court under Section 77 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 2013, and the same was numbered as

L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017.

16. The petitioners being the legal heirs of late Syed

Jaffar Ali are interested persons in the compensation

amount deposited in L.A.O.P.No.320 of 2017 and only

on the ground that they were not parties in the suit in

O.S.No.272 of 1989, their implead petitions were

rejected by the Court below. In fact, C.C.C.A.No.52 of

1991 and Cross-Objections (SR) No.27079 of 1999 and

C.R.P.Nos.2852, 2853 and 2854 of 1995 were disposed

of by this Court in a common order dated 20.09.2016

and the petitioners herein were arrayed as the

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

respondent Nos.18 to 20 in C.R.P.No.2852 of 1995, as

the respondent Nos.11 to 13 in C.R.P.Nos.2853 and

2854 of 1995 being legal heirs of late Syed Jaffar Ali ,

but mentioned that the petitioners were not necessary

parties to the litigation. It is clearly shows that the

names of petitioners were made as parties as legal heirs

of late Syed Jaffar Ali, but their names were

purposefully not impleaded as appellants in

C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991 by the 1st wife and her children

of late Syed Jaffar Ali, which would not take away the

rights of all the legal heirs of late Syed Jaffar Ali.

17. The common order passed in C.C.C.A.No.52 of

1991 and Cross-Objections (SR) No.27079 of 1999 and

C.R.P.Nos.2852, 2853 and 2854 of 1995, this Court has

given following directions:

"C.C.C.A.No.52 of 1991 and C.R.P.Nos.2852, 2853 and 2854 of 1995 filed by the appellants/revision petitions are dismissed.

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

Cross-Objections (SR) No.27079 of 1999 are allowed and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.272 of 1989 passed by the trial Court is modified to the effect that plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 10 in the appeal are entitled to 101 shares; defendants 2 to 7/respondents 11 to 16 and 18 to 28 are entitled to 59 shares and defendants 1 and 8/appellants 1 to 8 are entitled to 160 shares in Items 1,3 and 4 of plaint schedule properties".

18. Admittedly, late Syed Jaffar Ali was defendant

No.2 in the suit in O.S.No.272 of 1989 and he was

entitled to 59 shares and 150 shares in item Nos.1,3

and 4 of the suit schedule property and the petitioners

being legal heirs of late Syed Jaffar Ali are entitled to be

eligible to get the compensation on par with his first

wife and her children and the Court below ought not to

have rejected the implead applications on the ground

that they were not parties to the suit in O.S.No.272 of

1989.

19. The Court below erred in holding that the

reference was made only for enhancement of the

compensation and not for apportionment of

SK,J CRP.No.704 of 2021

compensation and the petitioners cannot be impleaded

as legal heirs of late Syed Jaffar Ali, but the reference

was made for apportionment of compensation.

20. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel

for the petitioners in Polaki Rojamani's case (cited 1

supra) apply to the instant case and the relevant

portion as follows;

"In the present case, the dispute referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.O.P.No. 39 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Rajam is only on the question of apportionment of compensation among the claimants. The Court is called upon only to determine the quantum of compensation to be paid to each of the claimants already on record. I, therefore, hold that if a dispute is only as to the apportionment of the compensation among the claimants already on record, filing of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by certain persons seeking to implead themselves as parties to the dispute is not permissible as in my considered view, they are not 'interested persons' in the dispute. On the contrary, if the reference Under Section 30 of the Act is on the question of determining as to who are the persons entitled to receive compensation, then it is permissible to the Civil Court to entertain an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as such parties are saved Under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act which enables them to get themselves impleaded in the dispute".