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. 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
