IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14106 of 2002 Between: Mohd. Fakruddin (died per LRs) & others. … Petitioners AND Estate Officer, Hyderabad & Secunderabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Naveen Kumar for Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Roads & Buildings This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14106 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 12.07.2002 passed in C.M.A.No.70 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby he conﬁrmed order dated 03.02.1987 passed by respondent No.1. The subject matter of the property is house bearing municipal No.4-1-1118/A, Bogulkunta, Hyderabad. The said property admittedly belonged to Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan @ Prince Mukarram Jah Bahadur (for short, ‘the HEH, the Nizam’) and was admittedly in possession of Mohd. Fakruddin, the deceased petitioner No.1, in whose place petitioner Nos.2 to 13 came on record as his legal representatives. The power of attorney holder of the HEH, the Nizam ﬁled RC.No. 13 of 1971 in the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of Mohd. Fakruddin under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from August, 1968 to August, 1970. The said RC was dismissed on the ground that the lease deed produced before the Rent Controller showed that the property, which was the subject matter of the eviction petition, was vacant land and that therefore the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to evict the lessee from the premises. This order has become final. The subject property was declared as surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. As the request of the HEH the Nizam for exemption was refused by the Government, he exercised his option by selling the property to the Government under registered sale deed dated 18.01.1980. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 08.01.1987 to Mohd. Fakruddin under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’) for his eviction. The occupant ﬁled his explanation on 19.01.1987, wherein he took the plea that the property was in his possession and he constructed a shed, dug a bore well and took water and electricity connections and that he made improvements over the land, which was in his possession for the last 40 years by paying municipal and other taxes. After considering the said explanation, respondent No.1 passed order dated 03.02.1987 ordering for the eviction of Mohd. Fakruddin by holding that he failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the premises was held by him, except that he was in possession of the same unauthorisedly. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.1, Mohd. Fakruddin ﬁled CMA.No.70 of 1987, which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by order dated 30.04.1987. The learned Chief Judge in his order held that the occupant’s claim that he acquired title by adverse possession cannot be adjudicated by the Estate Oﬃcer and that if he seeks to establish his title, he has to approach the competent civil Court for adjudication of his rights. He also held that the State Government is the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed and thus it became a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and that the Estate Oﬃcer passed order after following prescribed procedure. Mohd. Fakruddin ﬁled WP.No.9103 of 1987 questioning the said order. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 21.03.1992. The learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition, accepted the contention of the learned counsel for Mohd. Fakruddin that in view of the bar contained under Section 10 of the Act on the civil Courts’ jurisdiction to decide the occupant’s claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession, the orders of the Estate Oﬃcer and the Civil Court cannot be sustained. On that premise, this Court directed respondent No.1 to decide whether the occupant has acquired title by adverse possession and that he shall pass an appropriate order after deciding that question. After remand, the case was reheard and dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by his order dated 12.07.2002. A perusal of the order shows that the civil Court has not gone into the issue of adverse possession, which was directed to be adjudicated upon by this Court. Instead, the civil Court proceeded on the premise that when Mohd. Fakruddin was admittedly in unauthorized occupation of the property, which was purchased by the Government from the original owner and thereby the property has become public premises, respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. The civil Court reasoned that as the Government was the owner and Mohd. Fakruddin was the unauthorized occupant, the order of eviction passed by respondent No.1 does not suﬀer from any illegality. This order is assailed in this writ petition. Having carefully considered the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, I am of the considered view that he failed to carry out the direction given by this Court to decide the issue, namely, whether Mohd. Fakruddin perfected his title by adverse possession? Admittedly, the said order of this Court has become final. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the learned Chief Judge to decide the said issue. But, surprisingly, he has not even adverted to the said issue, leave alone deciding the same. Thus, the impugned order suﬀers from serious error, requiring this Court’s intervention. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed on this short ground alone without going into the other aspects of the case raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The matter is remitted to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, with the direction that he shall decide the said issue after permitting the respective parties to adduce evidence. On an analysis of the evidence, if the learned Chief Judge comes to the conclusion that the said Mohd. Fakruddin perfected his title by adverse possession, the petitioners will not be liable for eviction. Conversely if the ﬁnding is otherwise, the petitioners will be liable for eviction in terms of order dated 03.02.1987 passed by respondent No.1. Since the case is more than two decades old, I ﬁnd it appropriate that the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad disposes of the CMA within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.17627 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:21.10.2008 ES