THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1356 of 2001 and 982 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J) The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Revenue Officers concerned including the District Collector, Hyderabad District filed WA.No.1356 of 2001 against order dated 25.06.2001 in WP.No.30103 of 1998. Sri T. Ramchandra Rao, a third party to the writ petition, filed WA.No.982 of 2002 with the leave of this Court assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge passed in WP.No.30103 of 1998. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in WA.No.1356 of 2001. The undisputed facts are narrated hereunder: Three separate parcels of land admeasuring Ac.25.00, Ac.12.02 guntas and Ac.8.03 guntas in Sy.No.102 of Hakimpet Village of Hyderabad district were assigned in favour of Sri Syed Amhed Nuruddin, Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi and Sri Mohd. Mohiuddin respectively in the year 1950. The said assignments were cancelled by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.2166, Revenue (V) Department, dated 23.10.1976. The said G.O. was questioned by filing three separate writ petitions, namely; WP.Nos.3626 of 1976, 5125 of 1980 and 4805 of 1978 by Sri Syed Amhed Nuruddin, Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi and Sri Mohd. Mohiuddin respectively. WP.Nos.3626 of 1976 and 4805 of 1978 filed by Sri Syed Amhed Nuruddin and Sri Mohd. Mohiuddin respectively were allowed by this Court. WP.No.5125 of 1980 was disposed of by this Court vide separate order dated 14.08.1986 quashing G.O.Rt.No.2166 dated 23.10.1976 on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directing appellant No.1 to issue a show cause notice and hear the writ petition before passing the final order. Following the order passed by this Court in WP.No.3626 of 1976, appellant No.1 issued memo dated 11.09.1990 directing the revenue authorities to take appropriate action for implementation of the said order. But appellant No.1 issued memo dated 14.02.1992 keeping the earlier memo dated 11.09.1990 in abeyance. The society by name Yamunanagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which purchased the land from Sri Syed Ahmed Nuruddin, filed WP.No.2963 of 1992 in this Court. This writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 30.04.1997. The said judgment was carried in appeal by appellant No.1 before the Supreme Court along with SLP, which ended in its dismissal. It is the common case of the parties that with regard to the properties originally held by Sri Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and Sri Mohd Mohiuddin, the revenue authorities implemented the judicial orders by mutating the names of the successors of the original owners of the properties. As regards the property held by Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi, no action was taken by appellant No.1 to pass a fresh order, as directed by this Court in its order dated 14.08.1986. The writ petitioners, who claimed to be the members of Raghava Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short, ‘the Society’), to which Sri Jaten Raj Jain, the purchaser from Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi under registered sale deed dated 22.07.1967, is stated to have sold the said land under an agreement of sale on 18.04.1975, filed WP.No.30103 of 1998 for a writ of Mandamus to direct the appellants to incorporate the name of the writ petitioners – respondent Nos.1 to 34 or the Society in town survey records. The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective pleading of the parties, held that Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi stood on equal footing as Sri Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and Sri Mohd. Mohiuddin and denial of a similar treatment to the successors-in- interest of Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Single Judge rejected the request of the learned Government Pleader that appellant No.1 may be directed to pass a fresh order in terms of this Court’s order dated 14.08.1986, by observing that though appellant No.1 was given an opportunity to issue show cause notice and pass appropriate orders, it failed to do so for over one and a half decade and that it would be futile to give one more opportunity to it to pass a fresh order. The learned Judge, therefore, directed that the appellants shall act in the same manner as they have acted in pursuance of memo dated 11.09.1990 issued in respect of the properties held by Sri Syed Ahmed Nuruddin over an extent of Ac.12.02 guntas in Sy.No.102/4/2 of Hakimpet Village of Hyderabad District. It is useful to extract the directions given by the learned Single Judge hereinbelow: “(a) That the Government shall implement the decision taken in memo dated 11.09.1990 which became final in respect of the land assigned to Syed Ahmed Nuruddin also to Mr. Mohiuddin Qureshi over an extent of Ac.12.02 guntas in Sy.No.102/4/2 of Hakimpet Village of Hyderabad District. (b) S.No.102/4/2 of Hakimpet Village of Hyderabad District should be co-related to the town survey numbers after duly identifying the land and appropriate boundary should be fixed as was directed in memo by the Government dated 11.09.1990. It is also open for the petitioners to apply for fixing the boundaries of S.No.102/4/2 of Hakimpet Village by filing an application to the Survey and Land Record authorities. (c) The land in question was already sold by the original owner to Jetan Raj Jain on 22.06.1967, who in turn sold the same to Cooperative Housing Society and the Cooperative Housing Society has already allotted the plots in favour of the petitioner members. The Collector shall direct the concerned authorities to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records to the extent of the land allotted to them on the basis of the allotment made by the Cooperative Housing Society. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” At the hearing, Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in not permitting appellant No.1 to pass a fresh order, as directed by this Court in the order passed on 14.08.1986 in WP.No.5125 of 1980. Alternatively, he submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed appellant No.2 to issue necessary directions to the authorities concerned to mutate the names of the respondents in the relevant records, as no such relief was granted by this Court in case of the other two assignees. Sri Srinivas Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA.No.982 of 2002 submitted that his client has got agreement of sale dated 10.12.1993 executed in his favour by the GPA of the legal heirs of Sri Jetan Raj Jain, the purchaser of the property from Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi and therefore he has got right over the property in dispute and the learned Single Judge erred in giving direction to mutate the names of the respondents – writ petitioners. With regard to the first contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge should have left the issue to be decided by appellant No.1 by passing an appropriate order, we are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Though the direction was given to appellant No.1 by this Court as far back as 14.08.1986, while quashing G.O.Rt.No.2166, dated 23.10.1976, nearly for 13 years no order was passed. No reasons were assigned before the learned Single Judge for not acting on the directions of this Court for such a substantially long period. In the face of the admitted fact situation that in respect of the other two parcels of the land, whose assignments were also cancelled on the same ground as was done in the case of the land assigned to Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi, no useful purpose would have been served even if appellant No.1 was allowed to pass a fresh order. The learned Special Government Pleader does not dispute that all the three assignees stood on equal footing and there are no distinguishing features between the case on hand and the other two cases. When the appellants have recognized the ownership of the successors of the assignees in the other two cases and mutated the names after a proper identification, we see no reason for the appellants not to apply the same yardstick in the case of the land assigned to Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi. In this view of the matter, we reject the first contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. Insofar as the directions given by the learned Single Judge for mutation is concerned, we see force in the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel in WA.No.982 of 2002. There are competing claims regarding the property in question. While the respondents – writ petitioners trace their right through the Society under an agreement of sale said to have been executed in its favour by Sri Jaten Raj Jain, the appellant in WA.No.982 of 2002 is claiming his right over the property through agreement of sale dated 10.12.1993 said to have been executed by the GPA of the legal heirs of Sri Jaten Raj Jain. In view of these conflicting claims, it is appropriate that the inter se dispute should be left to be decided by the competent authority and both the parties can be left free to initiate appropriate proceedings in this regard. On the premises as above, both the writ appeals are partly allowed. While affirming the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of directing the appellants to treat the land originally assigned in favour of Sri Mohiuddin Qureshi on par with the land assigned to Sri Syed Ahmed Nuruddin and in terms of memo dated 11.09.1990, the directions contained in ‘c’ of order under appeal regarding mutation is set aside by leaving it open to the rival claimants to the property to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent forum for mutation of their respective names in the town survey and other revenue records. T. MEENA KUMARI, J C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: .02.2009 ES