Sri Mohan Rao vs Abul Qair Naseeruddin Kamran
2025 Latest Caselaw 6417 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Mohan Rao vs Abul Qair Naseeruddin Kamran on 12 November, 2025

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

                       WRIT APPEAL No.1200 OF 2025

Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Nikunj Dugar learned counsel for the respondent No.1.



JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 24.06.2025 passed

by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10368 of 2024 filed

by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner against the inaction of the

appellant (the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) in failing to

consider the representation dated 27.03.2024 made by the writ

petitioner and sought for a direction on the respondents therein

including the appellant (respondent No.8) to complete the proceedings

pending under the repealed Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951

('the 1951 Act'). The direction, as prayed for in the Writ Petition,

addressing unresolved issues concerning the lands in four Survey

Numbers i.e., Sy.No.122/1 admeasuring Acs.10.21 gts., Sy.No.396/2

admeasuring Ac.1.16 gts., Sy.No.438 admeasuring Acs.17.22 gts. and

Sy.No.396/4 admeasuring Acs.13.20 gts., which were not included in

Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962.

2. The writ petitioner/the respondent No.1 filed 2 I.As. (IA.Nos.1

and 2 of 2024) for interim directions on the respondents (including the

appellant herein i.e., the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) against

mutations or alteration of Revenue Records of the lands contained in

MB,J&GPK,J

the four survey numbers and to restrain the respondents from

creating any third party interest in those lands.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the

Writ Petition by directing the appellant/the respondent

No.8 - Competent Officer to dispose of Application No.1 of 2000

preferred by the petitioner or the predecessor in-interest or legal heirs

of Saleha Fatima Begum, within a period of three months from the

date of the impugned order and also imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- to

be payable by the appellant/the respondent No.8 as they had failed to

settle the dispute and dispose of the Application filed by the petitioner,

even after the lapse of 25 years.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

Counsel has taken us through the relevant provisions of the 1951 Act

and the subsequent repeal and reinstatement thereof. We have also

perused the notifications and communications with regard to the

repeal.

5. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No.8 in the Writ

Petition, is the Competent Officer appointed by the State Government

under section 4 of the 1951 Act vide G.O.M.S.No.1042, Revenue (L.A.)

Department, dated 16.11.1991. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner

was represented before the learned Single Judge by his General Power

MB,J&GPK,J

of Attorney holder vide General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.2019.

The Writ Petitioner claims to be the predecessor-in-interest of the

lands in the four survey numbers which were classified as 'Evacuee

Property' under the 1951 Act under the custodian of a Competent

Officer who was appointed under the 1951 Act.

6. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner claims that the property

was owned by one Nooruddin Hasan and Saifuddin Khalid, sons of

Muneer Ahmed. A claim was initiated by Saleha Fatima Begum,

daughter of Muneer Ahmed along with her sister and mother. The

properties being recognized as Composite Properties with respective

shares of the evacuees and non-evacuees being determined and

established. The Competent Officer, entrusted with the custody of the

properties, conducted their sale as authorised by section 10 of the

1951 Act and Saleha Fatima Begum made payment of Rs.38,415/-,

consequent to which the lands were acquired by Saleha Fatima

Begum through a Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962.

Although Saleha Fatima Begum became undisputed owner of the

properties. It was later discovered that the Competent Officer omitted

to include the lands in the four survey numbers were not included in

the Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. Saleha Fatima

Begum passed away on 27.06.1987. The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima

Begum submitted a representation to the Custodian of Evacuee

Property and the Secretary to the Commissioner of Survey Settlements

MB,J&GPK,J

and Land Records, Hyderabad on 05.11.1988 demanding that the

lands in the four survey numbers be allotted to them in view of

blatant omission in the Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962.

The Custodian and the Secretary issued orders dated 06.05.1989 in

favour of the legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum affirming Saleha

Fatima Begum's ownership over lands in the four survey numbers.

7. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner states that certain third

parties filed W.P.Nos.9229 and 9338 of 1989 challenging the orders

issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the Secretary to

Commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records dated

06.05.1989. Vide the common order dated 01.11.1999, passed in the

said two Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge quashed the

Custodian's order dated 06.05.1989 permitting the Writ Petitioners

therein to seek appropriate recourse before a designated Competent

Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Aggrieved by the said

common order dated 01.11.1999, legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum

represented by the GPA-holder filed Writ Appeals which were

dismissed on by upholding the common order dated 01.11.1999.

During the course of the Writ Appeals, a Division Bench directed the

legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum to approach the Competent Officer

appointed by the State Government under section 4 of the 1951 Act

and by G.O.Ms.No.1042, Revenue (LA) Department dated 16.11.1991.

MB,J&GPK,J

8. The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum, thereafter made an

Application (Application No.1 of 2000) dated 28.03.2000 to the

appellant/the respondent No.8 (the Competent Officer) with a request

for allotment of lands in the four survey numbers. In the said

Application, the legal heirs filed an I.A. on 19.07.2002 for a direction

on the Revenue Authorities not to mutate the names of the

respondents therein in the Revenue Records and prohibiting the said

respondents from altering the nature or physical features of the land.

The Competent Officer passed an order on 19.07.2002 directing the

parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land until the main

Application was resolved.

9. The above narrations of facts are based on the writ affidavit and

are undisputed. These admitted facts have been narrated to provide

the context to the grievance raised by the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

10. The grievance of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in the Writ

Petition was the inaction on the part of the appellant/the respondent

No.8 (the Competent Officer) with regard to hearing the respondent

No.1/writ petitioners' Application (Application No.1 of 2000) filed on

28.03.2000. The respondent No.1 states that the Competent Officer

failed to take steps towards the final hearing of the matter since

07.11.2009 despite the father of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner

MB,J&GPK,J

regularly taking follow-up action in the matter until his death i.e., on

13.12.2017.

11. As stated above, none of the facts have been disputed by the

appellant/the respondent No.8. The only challenge to the impugned

order is that the appellant was divested of his responsibility to proceed

with the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's Application in view of the

1951 Act being repealed in 2005 by The Displaced Persons Claims and

Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 ('the 2005 Act').

12. Counsel for the appellant/the respondent No.8 relies on a

Notification dated 19.08.2010 to urge that the 2005 Act designated a

Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as the Competent Officer

under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Counsel further submits that The

Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 ('the 2017 Act') repealed

the enactments specified in the First Schedule including The

Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005, but did

not revive or restore the jurisdiction of the appellant as the Competent

Officer under section 4 of the 1951 Act. Counsel concludes that the

impugned order fails to notice that the appellant did not have the

power to process the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's application

after the 2005 Act came into force.

13. The stand taken by the appellant is disputed by counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Counsel places a

MB,J&GPK,J

series of Notifications and Communications to urge that the

responsibility of the appellant, as the Competent Officer, continued

and remained undisturbed notwithstanding the 2005 Act and the

2017 Act.

14. The arguments made on behalf of the appellant/the respondent

No.8 and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner would be clarified from

the list of documents annexed to the Writ Petition filed by the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The documents are as follows:

(i) The appellant/respondent No.8 was appointed as

the Competent Officer on 16.11.1991 under

G.O.Ms.No.1042 in exercise of powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 4 of the 1951 Act.

(ii) A Notification dated 19.08.2010, issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighter and

Rehabilitation (FFR) Division. The notification

records the necessity of delegation in view of the

2005 Act not containing specific savings Clause

and thus the provisions of section 6 of The General

Clauses Act, 1897 and also states, inter alia, that

it had become necessary to delegate powers to the

officers of Government of the National Capital

Territory of Delhi to exercise powers under various

MB,J&GPK,J

provisions of the repealed Acts to enable them to

dispose of pending claims, notwithstanding such

Appeal. The notification also specifies that the

Evacuee Property Cell is dealing with the

properties situated in Delhi which is responsible

for the management and disposal of Evacuee

property as per the notification of August 2010

issued under The General Clauses Act.

(iii) A communication issued by the Ministry of Supply

& Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation),

Government of India, dated 24.05.1980 to the

Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Revenue Department, Hyderabad stating that the

administration, management and disposal of the

remaining undisposed of the acquired evacuee

lands/properties and realization of arrears of

rental demands outstanding against individuals in

respect of evacuee properties in the State of

Andhra Pradesh has been transferred the items of

work to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for

disposal of the residuary work in a satisfactory

manner and for carrying out the purposes of The

Displaced Persons (Compensation &

MB,J&GPK,J

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed

thereunder. The Communication further states

that the number of cases is pending in relation to

the Evacuee properties. The powers exercised by

the Tribunals shall be delegated to the Officers of

the State Government nominated in this behalf

and the files pertaining to the litigation work will

be handed over by a representative of the

Rehabilitation Department at Hyderabad. The

notification further mandates the State

Government to appoint a Competent Officer under

section 4 of the 1951 Act to deal with the

composite properties in respect of which the

proceedings have already been started or may be

started after the notification. The properties

mentioned in the said notification shall be deemed

to have been completely transferred from the

Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from

01.06.1980.

(iv) A communication issued from the Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India (FFR Division)

dated 22.09.2008 to all the Chief Secretaries of the

State and the Administrators of the Union

MB,J&GPK,J

Territories clarifying that the Repeal 2005 Act

would not affect the disposal of a category of cases

mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 3.1 by the State

Government which would include unsatisfied

verified claims filed under The Displaced Persons

(Claims) Act, 1950 in which right has accrued or

has been acquired and which were pending as on

06.09.2005 i.e., the date on which the 1954 Act

and the other related Acts were repealed. The

communication reiterates that settlement of

pending matters can be taken up by the

authorities prescribed under any State Laws that

may have been enacted, since the subject stands

transferred to the State Governments.

(v) The Notification issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India (FFR Division) to all

the Chief Secretaries of States/Administrators of

UTs further dated 17.11.2016 clarifies that all the

State Governments shall continue to decide the

proceedings which were pending as on the date of

the repeal and deal with the residuary works of

administration, management and disposal of

acquired evacuee properties transferred to the

MB,J&GPK,J

State Governments/UTs, under the 1954 Act and

other related Acts as per the provisions of section

6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897. The

communication clarifies that no fresh delegation of

powers or revival of authority is required as the

same revives automatically in the light of the

Supreme Court's order in UOI Vs. International

Sindhi Panchayats & Ors dated 28.04.2014,

upheld vide order dated 07.01.2016 passed in

Review Petition No.3377 of 2015 which declared

that section 6 of The General Clauses Act, is

applicable to the Repeal Act of 2005 and that the

State Governments shall continue to decide the

cases pending as on the date of the Repeal Act,

2005.

15. The series of documents placed on behalf of the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner comprehensively dislodges the stand taken on

behalf of the appellant. The notifications/communications reflect that

the appellant, who was appointed as the Competent Officer under the

G.O.Ms.No.1042 dated 16.11.1991 under section 4 of the 1951 Act,

would continue to decide and settle the matters which were pending

as on 06.09.2005 i.e., when the 1950 Act was repealed. The writ

petitioner's Application No.1 of 2000 was made on 28.03.2000 to the

MB,J&GPK,J

appellant/the respondent No.8 requesting for the allotment of lands in

the four survey numbers. The writ petitioner's I.A, for interim

protection was filed before the appellant on 19.07.2002 meaning

thereby that the appellant had the jurisdiction to hear the Application

in 2000 and continued to have jurisdiction even after 2005.

16. Therefore, there is no conceivable reason as to why the

appellant sat over the writ petitioner's Application for 25 years without

taking any action in terms of the 1951 Act or the related Acts for

allotment and possession. Admittedly, the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner's Application has not progressed since 07.11.2009 and the

appellant (the Competent Officer) has not taken up the matter for

hearing. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was unable to follow the

progress of the Application after the death of his father on 13.02.2017.

17. What is more shocking is the complete abdication of

responsibility by the appellant/the respondent No.8 in sheepishly

seeking shelter under the 2005 Act and arguing that the appellant

was divested of the responsibility to decide the Application in view of

the delegation made in favour of the Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari

Court, Delhi. This argument is not only incorrect, as borne out from

the documents placed on record by the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner, but unforgivably misleading and self-serving. The

appellant does not have any credible answer to the notification dated

MB,J&GPK,J

19.08.2010 which makes it clear that the delegation to the Officers of

the National Capital Territory of Delhi was only with regard to Evacuee

properties situated in Delhi. It is clear that the appellant sought to

rely on a selected part of the notification only to suit its purpose. The

appellant also failed to disclose an earlier communication dated

24.05.1980 by which the residuary files relating to Evacuee properties

were transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Officers

nominated by the State Government.

18. The appellant's argument fails altogether in view of the

communication dated 22.09.2008 which mandated the State

Government (undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and now Telangana)

to settle the cases pending as on 06.09.2005 under the relevant State

laws. In essence, the transfer of pending cases to the State

Government was complete on and from 1980 and the appellant

therefore was under a mandate to decide and settle the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner's Application, pending since 28.03.2000,

notwithstanding the repeal under the 2005 Act or the subsequent Act

of 2017 or otherwise. It is also clear that the selected portion of the

notification dated 19.08.2010 relied by the appellant was only for the

purpose of the properties situated at New Delhi.

19. The Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 was enacted for the

purpose of settling the property claims of persons who had been

MB,J&GPK,J

displaced during the partition and related strife in India. The object of

the Act was to make special provisions for the separation of the

interests of evacuees from those of other persons in property in which

such other persons are also interested and for the matters connected

therewith. By sitting over the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's

Application for 25 years, the appellant has not only frustrated the

object of the Act but also deprived two generations of the claimed

owner/s of the lands in question and forced them to litigate before the

Courts. The appellant simply does not have any defence to his

inaction in hearing the Application. The very fact of the appellant

challenging the impugned order whereby the appellant was only

directed to dispose of the Application within three months from the

date of the impugned order would reinforce the appellant's absolute

lack of commitment and empathy.

20. The only reason that we have laboured to state the background

facts is to highlight the helplessness of the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner in the face of the complete apathy of the appellant and the

concerned functionaries in the State administration. It is truly

startling that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's Application has

been kept pending for 25 years and the appellant now seeks to disown

his responsibility under the cover of repeal under the 2005 Act.

MB,J&GPK,J

21. The shock expressed by the learned Single Judge and

imposition of costs is fully justified. We may note that counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner exhibited his

bona fides by requesting that the costs be paid to the Sainik Welfare,

Telangana/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, Telangana, instead of being

paid to the writ petitioner.

22. Apart from holding that the Writ Appeal is completely

misconceived, meritless and tainted with mala fides in misleading the

Court, we also find no reason to interfere with the costs imposed by

the learned Single Judge. The injury caused to the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner by reason of the inaction of the appellant cannot

be measured in monetary terms. Hence, the costs stand. The

appellant shall pay the costs to the Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armed

Forces Flag Day Fund, Telangana within two weeks from today. The

appellant shall dispose of the application within four weeks from

today.

23. W.A.No.1200 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is

accordingly dismissed.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 12th November, 2025.

Note: issue c.c. forthwith (B/o) BMS