IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 25583 of 2008 Between: 1.Azizunissa Begum W/o. Late Nawab Rasheed Nawaz Jung aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, R/o. 3-6-547, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2.Mohammed Rafiuddin Khan S/o. Late Nawab Rasheed Nawaz Jung, aged about 43 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. 3-6-547, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Habeeb Nawab Jung S/o. Late Nb. Nazeer Nawaz Jung R/o. H.No 1-8-586, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2. Fazal Yar Jung S/o. Late Nb. Nazeer Nawaz Jung R/o. H.No. 11-4-653, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3. Mujeeb Yar Jung S/o. Late Nb. Nazeer Nawaz Jung R/o. 3-5-121/E, Eden Gardens Hyderabad. 4. Basheerunissa Begum W/o. Late Ghulam Hussain Ali Khan R/o. 10-3-274/12, Homey Nagar, Hyderabad. 5. Shamsunissa Begum W/o. Late Ghulam Hussain Ali Khan, R/o. 10-3-274/12, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 6. Hyder Abbas S/o. Late Ghulam Hussain Ali Khan R/o. F-49, Banjara Bhavan, Road No.1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 7. The State of A.P. Rep. by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 8. The Special Grade Deputy Collector Chevella Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. (Respondent Nos.1 to 3 not necessary parties in this W.P.) .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Certiorari" calling for the records pertaining to IA No. 473/2007 and IA No. 597/2007 dated 1- 11-2007 in L.G.C. No. 160/1999 and be further pleased to quash the same and consequently, direct the Hon'ble Special Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the application schedule site covered under L.G.C. No. 160/1999 and consequently direct the Hon'ble Special Court to issue appropriate Orders directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District to evict the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the application schedule site and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the application schedule site to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Officiating as the Court of Wards in respect of the entire estate of Lady Viquar including the application schedule site) in compliance with the Judgment & Decree dated 21-9-2005 passed in L.G.C. No. 160/1999 by executing the same as per the due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I.A No. 473/2007 and I.A. No. 597/2007, dated 1-11-2007, in L.G.C. No. 160/1999 and quash the same and consequently, direct the Hon'ble Special Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the application schedule site covered under L.G.C. No. 160/1999 and consequently direct the Hon'ble Special Court to issue appropriate Orders directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District to evict the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the application schedule site and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the application schedule site to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Officiating as the Court of Wards in respect of the entire estate of Lady Viquar including the application schedule site) in compliance with the Judgment & Decree dated 20-9-2005, passed in L.G.C. No. 160/1999 by executing the same as per the due process of law. 2. Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the 1st applicant- Nawab Rashid Nawaz Jung Bahadur, in L.G.C.No.160 of 1999, on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, (for brevity ‘the Act’). The said applicant and three others filed L.G.C.No.160 of 1999 under Section 8 (1) of the Act to declare the respondents 1 to 3 therein as land grabbers and to evict them from the application schedule premises grabbed by them and their subordinates. The said L.G.C.No. 160 of 1999 was partly allowed, vide order, dated 20-09-2005, holding that the respondents 1 to 3 therein are the unauthorized encroachers and they were directed to deliver the application schedule land to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of two months from the date of the said judgment. If the respondents 1 to 3 therein failed to deliver the application schedule land within the time stipulated, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, was directed to take possession of land and deliver the same to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Court of Wards) after expiry of two months period from 20-09-2005 and submit compliance report to the Special Court under Rule 15 (2) of Rules framed under the Act. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners herein, who are the legal heirs of the 1st applicant in the L.G.C., and the applicants 2 to 4 therein, jointly filed I.A.No.473 of 2007, under Section 151 C.P.C. stating that as the judgment of the Special Court was not implemented and possession was not recovered from the respondents 1 to 3 therein and as the same was not handed over to the District Collector, R.R. District, as directed in the judgment, they sought for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, to evict the respondents 1 to 3 therein from the application schedule property and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the District Collector, R.R. District (Court of Wards) in respect of the entire estate of lady Viquar, in compliance with the judgment and decree of the Special Court, dated 20-09-2005, by executing the same as per due process of law. 4. It is stated that in the said application, the District Collector was made as a party-4th respondent. On behalf of the District Collector, R.R.District, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, filed counter affidavit in the said I.A.473 of 2007, stating that pursuant to the order of the Special Court, dated 20-09-2005, in L.G.C.No.160 of 1999, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, submitted compliance report, dated 17-07-2006, with regard to status and physical possession of the land and the date of execution of the order was also filed before the Special Court and the lands are in the custody of the District Collector, R.R. District (Court of Wards). 5. It is further stated that the legal heirs of the 1st applicant and the applicants 2 to 4 therein, filed joint application in I.A.No.597 of 2007, under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting the application schedule land, which is in the occupation of third parties and to note down the particulars of the occupants with municipal door numbers of each portion. 6. The above two applications were taken up by the Special Court and after considering the rival contentions, the Special Court held that as per the report of the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District, in his letter No.J/3144/2005, dated 23-08-2006, addressed to the Registrar of the Special Court, it is clear that possession of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 in Survey No.194/8/1 of Begumpet village is taken over as per the orders passed by the Special Court, dated 20-09-2005, in L.G.C.No.160 of 1999 and to evidence the said fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a report to the Special Court in Form-7 about the particulars of the property, duly signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the panchanama, dated 19-05-2006, made in the presence of five punch witnesses to show that the possession of the application schedule property was handed over to the District Collector, R.R. District, in the presence of the revenue authorities. It is further stated that once possession of the application schedule property has been handed over to the Court of Wards (District Collector, R.R. District), as per the compliance report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, it is the duty of the Court of Wards (District Collector, R.R. District) to manage the said property in accordance with the provisions made under A.P. (T.A.) Court of Wards Act 1350 F. Therefore, when once the property was handed over to the Court of Wards (District Collector, R.R. District) and the orders of the Special Court was already executed, nothing remains to execute before the Special Court and accordingly, dismissed the above applications, vide common order, dated 01-11-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the 1st applicant. 7. It is to be noticed that the 1st petitioner herein is the wife and the 2nd petitioner herein is the son of the 1st applicant in L.G.C.No.160 of 1999. It is stated that the order passed by the Special Court, dated 20-09-2005, was executed in the month of May, 2006 itself and a report was also filed on 23-08-2006. Had the order was not executed, the 1st applicant would have taken some steps to complain about the non-execution of the said order. Admittedly, he was alive when the said order was said to have been executed. He died on 01-10-2006. However, applicants 2 to 4 in the L.G.C. have not chosen to question the order of the Special Court in I.A.Nos.473 of 2007 and 597 of 2007. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that a false report has been filed before the Special Court and the encroachers were not evicted and possession of the application schedule land was not handed over to the District Collector, R.R. District. But, we are unable to accept the said contention because once the order of the Special Court has been executed, the Special Court becomes functus officio unless a fraud has been established with regard to the execution proceedings. 9. He further submits that the Special Court ought not to have dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2007, which was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the factual possession and report the same. When the order itself has been executed, neither the application filed for the purpose of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner nor the application filed in I.A.No.473 of 2007 for execution, is maintainable. If there is any dispute with regard to non-execution of the order, it is for the Court of Wards to show that it has not been executed. If there is any claim made before the Court of Wards by the beneficiaries, it is always open to them to work out their remedies before the Court of Wards. 10. In the instant case, it is not possible for us to come to a conclusion that the order of the Special Court has not been complied with. More so, when no steps have been taken before the Court of Wards (District Collector, R.R. District) as to whether the application schedule land was handed over to the Court of Wards or not and whether the Court of Wards has managed the said property as per the execution report, we do not find any merits in the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- V.ESWARAIAH, J ------------------------ K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 16-12-2008 Hsd