IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.8254 and 12773 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.8254 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Mohd. Mohtaram Khan S/o. Mohd. Moazam Khan R/o. H.No.23-2-499, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Farida Jameel D/o. Mohd. Alam Khan R/o.H.No.20-3-600, Moosabowli, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Adil Alam S/o. Mohd. Asad Khan R/o. H.No.20-3-600, Moosabowli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Sri P. Visweswar Reddy S/o. P. Sudharshan Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77/A, Priya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 5 P. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. P. Sudharshan Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77/A, Priya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 6 P. Praveen Narayan Reddy S/o. P. Narayana Reddy R/o. H.No.149, 6th Cross, 9th Main, NTI Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-97. 7 P. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. P. Nagi Reddy R/o. Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 P. Raghavender Reddy S/o. P. Nagi Reddy R/o. Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 P. Narotham Reddy S/o. P. Sirga Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77, Priya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 10 P. Narasimha Reddy S/o. P. Sirga Reddy died per LRs: 11 Smt. Prelima Devi W/o. P. Narasimha Reddy R/o. Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 12 P. Umamaheshwar Reddy S/o. P. Narsimha Reddy R/o. Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 13 P. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. P. Narsimha Reddy R/o. Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, direction , order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in initiating the proceedings to execute transfer deed in favour of the Respondents No. 4 to 13 in respect of the Sy.Nos.391 and 392 admeasuring Acs.26.26 guntas situated at Machirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without notice to the petitioners is arbitrary, bad, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 not to execute any transfer deed in favour of the Respondents 4 to 13 in respect of the Sy.Nos.391 and 392 admeasuring Ac. 26.26 guntas situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.GUMMALA.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION No.12773 of 2008 Between: 1 Ms. Fareeda Jameel D/o.Late Sri Mohd Alam Khan R/o.H.No.3-5-782/52/4, Sultan Apt., Flat No.204, Pardagate, King Kothi, Hyderabad. 2 Ms.Afroz Jahan W/o.Late Sri Mohd Asad Khan (S/o.late Mohd. Alam Khan) R/o.H.No.20-3-600, Moosa Bawli, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Adil Alam Khan S/o.Late Sri Mohd Asad Khan R/o.H.No.20-3-600, Moosa Bawli, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd. Sadiq Razvi S/o.Late Asia Begum (D/o. late Aslam Khan) R/o.H.No.23-2-499, Moghalpura, Saheb Village, Opp: Mirjula Tank, Hyderabad. 5 Mr.Omer Quraishi, S/o.late Aijaz Auraishi (S/o.late Qadeera Begum, D/o.Mohd. Aslam Khan) R/o.4-1-301 to 303, Reliable Business Center, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad-1. 6 Ms.Rehana Quraishi, D/o. Aijaz Quraishi, (S/o.late Qadeera Begum, D/o.Mohd. Aslam Khan) R/o.4-1-301 to 303, Reliable Business Center, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad-1. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Competent Officer (Under Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951) O/o the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Sri.P.Visweswar Reddy S/o.Sri.P.Sudharshan Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77/A, Priya Colony Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 4 Sri.P.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.Sri.P.Sudharshan Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77/A, Priya Colony Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 5 Sri.P.Praveen Narayan Reddy S/o.Sri.P.Narayan Reddy R/o.H.No.149, 6th Cross, 9th Main NTI Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore -97. 6 Sri.P.Ramkiran Reddy S/o.Sri P.Nagi Reddy R/o.Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Sri.P.Raghavender Reddy S/o.Sri P.Nagi Reddy R/o.Manchirevulu Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Sri.P.Narotham Reddy S/o.Sri P.Sirga Reddy R/o.12-2-422/77/, Priya Colony Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 9 Sri.P.Narasimha Reddy S/o.P.Sirga Reddy Died per LRs: 10 Smt.Prelima Devi W/o.P.Narasimha Reddy R/o.Manchirevulu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 Sri.P.Umamaheshwar Reddy S/o.P.Narasimha Reddy R/o.Manchirevulu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 12 P.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.P.Narasimha Reddy R/o.Manchirevulu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, direction or order one in the nature of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the orders passed by 2nd respondent in Case No. CO (Hyderabad) 572-577/58-131 dated 14.09.1959, and quash the same, as it is contrary to the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951, opposed to the principles of natural justice, without notices to the parties to the proceedings, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and declare all further consequential proceedings as illegal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.GUMMALA.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.8254 and 12773 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.No.8254 of 2008 (first writ petition) also figure as petitioners 1 and 3 in W.P.No.12773 of 2008 (second writ petition), which is filed by in all six petitioners. All the petitioners claim to be successors in title to estate of Mohd. Aslam Khan, their grandfather. They raised a dispute in respect of land admeasuring Acs.26.26 guntas in survey Nos.391 and 392 (petition schedule land). One P.Ramakrishna Reddy (original tenant), predecessor of contesting respondents, was given favourable order in Case No.CO(Hyderabad)572-577/68-131, dated 14.9.1959–about a half- century ago; to purchase petition schedule land and acquire right of ownership at a price fixed by Court of Competent Officer, Bombay, (Competent Officer) under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (Evacuee Interest Act, for brevity). When respondents 1 to 3 in first writ petition passed orders at the instance of contesting respondents to execute a transfer deed, case is filed to restrain them from executing transfer deed in favour of respondents 4 to 13 in first writ petition. In counter affidavit filed by Revenue Department a reference was made that Competent Officer under Evacuee Interest Act passed orders on 14.9.1959 in favour of P.Ramakrishna Reddy, and therefore, they filed second writ petition challenging the said order. In view of this, both the matters are being disposed of by common order by referring to the parties as they are arrayed in second writ petition. 2. The essential facts necessary for in limine for disposal of these two matters; of course ater respective parties have completed their pleadings are as follows. (i) Petition schedule land is property of late Mohd. Aslam Khan. He died in 1951 leaving behind his wife, three sons (Mohd. Alam Khan, Mohd. Moazam and Mohd. Azam Khan) and three daughters (Sara Begum, Asiya Begum and Kadeera Begum). Three sons succeeded to property and their names were mutated in revenue records. P.Ramakrishna Reddy and after his death his son, P.Narasimha Reddy, were cultivating tenants having statutory protection under relevant enactment. (ii) Mohd. Azam Khan, who migrated to Pakistan, had 14/72 share in the property. It was declared as evacuee property. Petitioners allege that as non-evacuee shareholders, other two sons of Mohd. Aslam Khan and thereafter their legal heirs are entitled to notice. But without notice, property was ordered to be sold to protected tenant. (iii) Property allegedly was offered for sale to remaining shareholders but they submitted petitions requesting to alienate entire property and pay their share of money. Competent Officer therefore took over petition schedule land under Section 7(1) of Evacuee Interest Act read with Rule 5(1) of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951 (Evacuee Interest Rules, for brevity). (iv) As non-evacuee shareholders did not evince interest in purchasing evacuee property of migrant, orders were passed on 04.6.1959 directing Tahsildar to sell the property to protected tenant for an amount of Rs.800/-. P.Ramakrishna Reddy paid amount by demand draft whereafter on 14.8.1959, and sale was confirmed in his favour. Subsequently on 14.9.1959 total share amount was directed to be distributed to all shareholders. (v) In August 2006, P.Narasimha Reddy submitted application requesting first respondent to execute transfer deed. As called for, District Collector submitted a report stating that Ramakrishna Reddy was in continuous possession and after his demise, his legal representatives were in possession and that Kistamma, W/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, filed declaration under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. (vi) Petitioners through General Power of Attorney submitted a representation on 10.4.2007 requesting to conduct detailed enquiry. In the meanwhile, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, forwarded transfer deed to District Collector. (vii) Petitioners requested for necessary Gazette notification declaring property as evacuee property, in vain. They therefore filed W.P.No.8254 of 2008 praying for writ of Mandamus declaring action of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), District Collector and Tahsildar in proceeding to execute transfer deed in favour of legal representatives of Ramakrishna Reddy as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction restraining execution of transfer deed. (viii) CCLA through Secretary filed detailed counter affidavit in W.P.No.8254 of 2008 stating that Competent Officer passed orders under Evacuee Interest Act for sale of petition schedule land in favour of Ramakrishna Reddy on 14.8.1959. Petitioners then filed W.P.No.12773 of 2008 seeking invalidation of the order dated 14.8.1959 of Competent Officer (second respondent in W.P. No.12773 of 2008) under Evacuee Interest Act on ground that it is contrary to provisions of the said Act, opposed to natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. 3. The factual background as above is conspectus on reading petitioners’ affidavits and counter affidavits filed by official respondents and un-official respondents. Therefore it is not necessary to refer to counter averments minutely. Suffice to mention that Secretary to CCLA, who filed counter affidavit presumably based on record, asserts that entire property including evacuee and non-evacuee interest has been sold to Ramakrishna Reddy by collecting value of property. He also asserts that notice was issued to petitioners’ purchasers offering evacuee property to non-evacuee shareholders, but they submitted petitions requesting the Government to alienate the property and distribute amounts to them. Petitioners have filed reply affidavits. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that legal representatives of Mohd. Aslam Khan were not give notice by respondents under Evacuee Interest Act, that order of Competent Officer was not implemented and attempt to get transfer deed was made in 2006 and that though in all relevant records, legal heirs of Mohd. Aslam Khan were mentioned, no effort was made to serve notices on them. Lastly he submits that when non-evacuee property is to be sold, it has been done only by public auction or calling tenders and cannot be offered to sale to protected tenant, who is entitled to only 60% in property. He also submits that in view of violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with procedure contemplated under Evacuee Interest Act, delay and laches would not bar this writ petition challenging order passed half-century ago. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA) and learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 13 made following submissions. There was notice to legal heirs of Mohd. Aslam Khan offering land and for distribution of money. They have waived their right to buy non- evacuee interest and petitioners, who are legal heirs of successors of Mohd. Aslam Khan, are bound by decision of their predecessor. Petitioners filed O.S.No.203 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and O.S.No.369 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and therefore, writ petition is barred. Allegedly petitioners’ names continued to be mentioned in revenue records, and therefore, they ought to have been vigilant and challenge order without waiting for legal heirs of late Ramakrishna Reddy approaching revenue authorities for execution of transfer deed. These writ petitions filed in 2008 challenging order of Competent Officer dated 15.9.1959 are barred by delay and laches. 6. It is axiomatic that delay and laches defeat claim of person to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Indeed there are cases decided by Supreme Court that when causes are brought before the Court with long delay, the Court can even infer that allegations of the aggrieved are not true and contra position is true. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar[1], the Supreme Court considered the question of delay and held as below. In our view, the above allegation is in no way sufficient to hold that the writ petitioner (respondent here) has explained properly and satisfactorily the undue delay of 20 years which had occurred between the alleged taking of possession of his land and the date of filing of writ petition in the High Court. We cannot overlook the fact that it is easy to make such kind of allegations against anybody that too against the State. When such general allegation is made against a State in relation to an event said to have occurred 20 years earlier, and the State’s non-compliance with petitioners demands, State may not at all be in a position to dispute such allegation, having regard to the manner in which it is required to carry on its governmental functions. Undue delay of 20 years on the part of the writ petitioner, in invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of compensation to his land alleged to have been taken by the Governmental agencies, would suggest that his land was not taken at all, or if it had been taken it could not have been taken without his consent or if it was taken against his consent he had acquiesced in such taking and waived his right to take compensation for it. (emphasis supplied) 7. Even in private law, remedy in a civil Court cannot be sought in respect of defeated claims. Section 27 of Limitation Act, 1963, adumbrates the principle that right of a person shall get extinguished if a favourable determination is not sought within period of limitation prescribed in Schedule thereunder. Keeping this in mind, this Court heard argument on the preliminary question whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. The submission made is that as the provisions of Evacuee Interest Act are not followed and as there was no notice to legal heirs of Mohd. Aslam Khan, order dated 14.9.1959 itself is non-est, void and unenforceable in law. The question is therefore whether there was notice to purchasers of petitioners or their predecessors through whom admittedly right to petition schedule land is claimed. 8. Petitioners 1 and 2 in second writ petition are legal heirs of Mohd. Alam Khan, S/o.Mohd. Aslam Khan. Third petitioner is grandson of Mohd. Alam Khan and petitioners 4 to 6 are children of daughters of Mohd.Aslam Khan. Whether all of them had notice of proceedings before Competent Officer and whether they or their predecessors are parties to proceedings, is core question in these writ petitions at the stage of admission. After considering documents available on record filed by both the parties, this Court is convinced that predecessors of petitioners had notice of proceedings before Competent Officer and those predecessors also wrote letters requesting for distribution of amount. 8. There is no dispute that Mohd. Azam Khan, S/o.Mohd. Aslam Khan, migrated to Paikstan. After making necessary enquiry, he was declared an evacuee by order dated 22.7.1952 passed by Senior Custodian to an extent of 14/72 share in petition schedule land. Deputy Custodian was directed to take possession of the said extent. Though a doubt is raised in reply affidavit that there is no such notification, it has to be rejected for the reason that along with counter affidavit CCLA has filed Xerox copies of claims filed by Mohd. Alam Khan, Mohd. Moazam Khan, Mahmooda Begum, Sara Begum, Asiya Begum and Kadeera Begum, under Section 7(1) of Evacuee Interest Act read with Rule 5(1) of Evacuee Interest Rules. In these claims filed in Case Nos.572-577/IAD/58 before Competent Officer on 26.2.1958, these persons stated that they are willing to deposit money value of evacuee share in the property. When notice was issued to Assistant Custodian of Evacuee property, he filed written statement on 27.8.1958 stating that Deputy Custodian has no objection if evacuee share is separated and remaining land is sold. In this, it was clearly stated that widow, three sons and three daughters are surviving heirs of late Mohd. Aslam Khan. These claims were adjudicated and an order was passed on 27.8.1958 by Competent Officer, Bombay, which reads as under. The claimants have filed their claims to claim their share in the composite properties which consist of agricultural fields bearing S.Nos.391 and 392 situated at Manchereval Taluka, West Hyderabad. The Assistant Custodian has filed his written statement in which he has stated that Shri Mohd. Azam Khan had been declared an evacuee and his interest in the composite properties to the extent of 14/72 as evacuee property. The properties originally belonged to Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan who died in 1951 and was survived by his widow Smt.Mahmooda Begum (claimant No.3), 3 sons, Shri Mohd. Moazam Khan (claimant No.1), Shri Mohd. Alam Khan (claimant No.2) and Shri Mohd. Azam Khan, evacuee respondent, and 3 daughters, Smt.Sara Begum, Asiya Begum and Smt.Kadeera Begum, claimants Nos.4 to 6. The parties are Mohammedans and are governed by the Muslim Law of inheritance and the shares of the parties would go to Smt.Mahmooda Begum 1/8th, 3 sons 14/72 each and 3 daughters 7/72 each and the evacuee’s share would be 14/72, and I hold accordingly. The claimants have estimated the value of the composite property to be only Rs.1000/-. The Custodian has not yet supplied the valuation of the composite properties would be fixed after the Custodian sent his valuation report. The non-evacuee claimants are not willing to purchase the evacuee property and would prefer that the properties be sold by public auction. I would therefore direct that the composite properties be sold by public auction and after deducting the usual incidental charges the proceeds be distributed among the various parties in the proportions determined by me above and evacuee share will be paid to the Custodian. Dated the 27th August 1958. Camp: Hyderabad. Sd/- xx xx xx (DHARKA DAS SURI) COMPETENT OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH 9. In furtherance of the said order, on 16.10.1958, Competent Officer addressed District Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian of evacuee property, Hyderabad, requesting for necessary information for conducting auction of property in two separate lots. A copy thereof was forwarded to Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq, requesting for particulars of property. The same was forwarded by Tahsildar on 29.11.1958. A perusal of this letter filed by CCLA along with counter affidavit would show that Tahsildar requested Competent Officer to send a circular for selling rural property. In reply thereto, Competent Officer sent following letter on 18.10.1958 (12.1.1959). Office of the Competent Officer, 8, Queens Barracks, Fort-Bombay 1. Dated 18.10.1958 12.01.1959 To Tahsildar, West Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, The Mamlatdars/SubDivisional Officers and Tahsildars, Andhra Pradesh. I enclose a copy of a circular letter issued by me which explains the procedure for the sale of Rural Composite Properties. As regards the agricultural lands in Andhra Pradesh I am to observe that these would fall under the following four categories as per attached schedule. (i) Cases in which the land is in possession of the protected tenant; (ii) Cases in which the land is in possession of unprotected tenants; (iii) Cases in which the land is in possession of co- sharers, and (iv) Cases in which the land is in possession of our allottees. In the case of lands in the occupation of protected tenants, they can acquire the right of ownership on payment of certain amounts as provided under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, and you may ascertain and report if the protected tenants are willing to purchase the lands in their possessions. In the case of lands in the possession of non-protected tenants the evacuee share can be transferred to them on the payment of the price fixed by this Court which is being intimated to you. In cases where the lands are in the occupation of the tenants the evacuee share can be sold to the sharers at the valuation fixed by this Court, if they are willing to buy it; if they are not willing to purchase it the only alternative is to sell the lands by public auction to the highest bidders. In case of lands in the possession of allottee of the Custodian Department the evacuee share be transferred to the allottees on their paying the price assessed by this Court. Sd/- xx xx xx (DHARKA DAS SURI) COMPETENT OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH 10. On 22.1.1959, District Collector, Hyderabad, informed Competent Officer that protected tenant of the land in survey Nos.391 and 392 is prepared to purchase land at the price fixed by Competent Officer and that a notice to co-sharers of the land was issued by Tahsildar. In the mean while, notice was issued to said Ramakrishna Reddy (protected tenant) to credit amount of Rs.800/- towards sale price and a letter was addressed on 17/19/8/1959 to Mohd. Moazam Khan to give particulars and correct residential addresses of all the claimants. He sent a letter on 25.8.1959 giving particulars and addresses of legal heirs of Mohd. Aslam Khan requesting that share amounts of above claimants (except himself) may be remitted to them. At that stage, Competent Officer passed orders on 14.9.1959 apportioning amount of Rs.644.43 after deducting Custodian’s (evacuee’s) share of 7/36 or Rs.155.57, among seven legal heirs of Mohd. Aslam Khan. In furtherance thereof, Competent Officer also addressed a letter dated 05.12.1958 to the legal heirs requesting them to authorize one person amongst them so that amount of Rs.644.43 can be sent to such person. By said letter, they were also informed to collect amount on or before 18.12.1959. After receiving said letter Mohd. Moazam Khan addressed following letter on 17.12.1959. 23-1-714, Opp.Azam Steam Press, Moghalpura, Hyderabad Deccan-2. Date 17.12.1959. Sub: CO. Case NO.(HYDERABAD)572 to 577/58-131 – Sale of Composite properties – Payment of sale proceeds. Ref: Your No.CO.7877-82, dated 5.12.1959. Dear Sir, With reference to the letter cited above, I am to inform you that as suggested by you therein, steps are being taken to obtain an authority in the name of one person from among us to enable your office to send a cheque in his name. The amount may, therefore, be kindly kept with your for some time more. In your letter cited, it is mentioned that the advance stamped receipt to be sent by us to you should be countersigned by the “Umamlatdar and ex-officio Sales Officer” with his office seal over it. As there is no officer bearing this designation known to us, it is requested to please clarify as to who this officer is and where his office is located. If his correct designation and address of his office is kindly furnished by you, the officer will be contacted and his counter- signature obtained on the receipt, as directed by you. A self-addressed stamped cover is enclosed for favour of an early reply. Yours faithfully, Sd/- xx xx xx (Mohd.Muazzam Khan) 11. After receiving above letter on 21.12.1958 Competent Officer sent cheque bearing No.630163, dated 08.2.1960, for an amount of Rs.644.43 towards share in the composite property sold in the case. A perusal of Xerox copies of various documents, some of which are referred to herein above, would not leave any doubt that at every stage immediate successors of late Mohd. Aslam Khan were involved while Competent Officer dealt with evacuee property and non-evacuee interest, which is petition schedule land. Therefore, the plea