IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14287 of 2008 Between: Shoukat Hassan Khan S/o.Late Nawab Jafar Nawaz Jung R/o.Yakutpura,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P rep.by its District Collector,Hyderabad District 2 The Tahasildar Charminar(M) Hyderabad 3 The District Educational Officer Gunfoundry,Hyderabad 4 Head Master Government Boys High School Yakutpura,Hyderabad ..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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders direction or directions declaring the action of the Respondents in not handing over the vacant possession of the building bearing No.17-3-515/1Yakutpura,Hyderabad to the petitioner along with arrears of rent outstanding electricity and water charges despite shifting the School to another premises in 2004 itself as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the building bearing No.17-3-515/1 Yakutpura,Hyderabad to the petitioner along with payment of arrears of rent as well as duties towards electricity and water charges. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not handing over the vacant possession of the school building bearing No.17-3-515/1, Yakutpura, Hyderabad to the petitioner along with arrears of rent, outstanding electricity and water charges despite shifting the school to another premises in the year 2004 itself. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of an agreement entered into between himself and his mother, the subject matter of building was taken over by the respondent-Education Department on lease in the year 1966 to run a school in the said building and during the continuance of the said agreement, in the year 1967, a suit was filed in O.S.No.15 of 1967 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad concerning the partition of the matruka properties of late Nawab Jafar Nawaz Jung, who died on 29.8.1965 and pursuant to the final decree passed in the said suit on 6.11.1992, subject matter of property came to the share of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner. The receiver and the Advocate Commissioner has also delivered symbolic possession of the property to them pursuant to the directions of the lower Court in I.A.No.1876 of 1993 dated 11.8.1993. On 10.5.2004, the mother of the petitioner expired and subsequently, for some time, rents were also paid to him. Thereafter the rents were not paid. Ultimately, on 19.2.2005, by proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, the arrears of rents were paid upto 30.9.2004 and it was promised that the remaining balance of amount will be paid later. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondents have vacated the school building on 26.7.2004, they have not handed over the building to the petitioner in spite of his requests and directed him to produce the proof of title. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction to produce documents to prove that he is the owner of the building in question, the petitioner has produced the decree passed by the Court below and the other documents to establish his title but no action has been taken to hand over possession of the building to him. However, at the instance of the department, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar has issued a notice to the petitioner on 28.1.2008 to produce relevant documents to prove his title. Even though he submitted all necessary documents in pursuance of the said notice, the respondents have not passed any orders. When the matter came up on 4.7.2008, while issuing notice before admission, this Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to file a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Even though the matter underwent several adjournments, no counter affidavit is filed by them. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit inter alia admitting the lease and the amount paid to the petitioner. It is averred that by proceedings dated 15.12.2004, the District Educational Officer has directed the 4th respondent- Head Master, Government Boys High School, Yakutpura to obtain certain documents from the petitioner and after receiving the documents submitted by the petitioner, he forwarded the same to the authorities. It is also admitted in the counter that the petitioner has submitted the death certificate of his mother and stated that he is the legal heir of his deceased mother and also produced letter dated 16.12.2004 to indicate that he was authorized to withdraw the rental amounts. It is stated that since the building is in a dilapidated condition, the respondents have shifted the school to some other place and also directed the Head Master of the school to obtain necessary documents from the petitioner to hand over physical possession. It is stated that a four man committee consisting of Deputy Educational Officer, Charminar Zone, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Charminar-1, Head Master, GBYS, Yakutpura and Mandal Revenue Officer, Chairminar was constituted to verify the genuineness of the ownership documents to hand over the private building to the genuine owner of the building and the Deputy Educational Officer, Charminar was requested to submit compliance report immediately. It is further stated that three reminders have been issued to the Deputy Educational Officer, Charminar, who is the committee member to handover physical possession of the building occupied by the Government Boys High School, Yakutpura, but no reply has been received so far. In the above said circumstances narrated in the counter affidavit, this Court adjourned the matter several times to know about the result of the enquiry conducted by the committee. In spite of taking adjournments, no instructions are reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. At any rate, it is the admitted case of the respondents also that the rents were paid to the petitioner and prima facie, a court decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and his mother with reference to the subject matter of property to show that the petitioner has got right over the property. It is not even the case of the respondents that any third parties are claiming right over the said property. The right, title and interest of the petitioner over the schedule property cannot be gone into by this Court or by the Committee said to have been constituted for the purpose of deciding the genuineness of the ownership of the petitioner. Admittedly, the department has taken the building on lease from the petitioner and his mother and also paid rents to them. That apart, the Court below in a suit for partition of matruka properties, has passed a final decree in which the school building in question has gone to the share of the petitioner and his mother. In case, if any third party claims right over the said property, the respondents can direct the petitioner to establish his title to the property in question in a competent civil court. But as on date, it is not brought to the notice of this Court as to whether any claims are pending against the said property before the authorities. In the circumstances, instead of keeping the building in question in the custody of the education department, the respondents are directed to hand over possession of the building to the petitioner. This does not mean that the title of the petitioner is declared by this court. If any person claims the title to the said property, they are at liberty to adjudicate their rights in a competent civil court. It is also made clear that if any third parties claim right to the said property, the respondents can insist the petitioner to prove his title before the competent civil court for delivery of the petition schedule building. With the above direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.1.12.2008 msv