Case: Ksb Ali Vs. State Of A.P.

by the impugned memo dated 21-05-2005. Neither the 170 petitioners (whose W.P.No.20298 of 1993 was referred to in the letter dated 15-04-2002) or Moizuddin Mahamood whose representation dated 04-08-2001 was also referred to in this letter (rejecting K.S.B.Alis representation for implementation of the Muntakhab and restoration of possession of the schedule property), have ever challenged the decision dated 15-04-2002. Neither did Sri K.S.B. Ali.Since neither the memos dated 06-05-2004 and 31-07-2004 nor the re-calling of the orders in these memos by the impugned memo dated 21-05-2005 is at the instance of any other person except K.S.B. Ali, none of the other petitioners could legitimately assert a grievance that the impugned memo was issued without notice or opportunity to them and on the ground that any rights accrued to them under the memos dated 06-05-2004 and 31-07-2004 were extinguished by the impugned memo.In the chaotic and incoherent state of facts adverted to above and absent any clarity as to whether K.S.B.Ali and/or the writ petitioners are the legal heirs of Nusrat Jung - I or lawfully authorized to represent any legal heirs; and since the writ petitions are founded on the assertion that the reliefs claimed are on the basis that the several petitioners (being successors-in-interest of Nusrat Jung - I) are entitled to restoration of possession of the schedule property; we do not consider it prudent or pragmatic that reliefs should have been granted to petitioners who have failed to plead and establish any litigative interest in the subject matter of the writ petitions; and therefore to a locus to litigate."23. Fifthly, as pointed out above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it was against the appellants, was never challenged by them by filing any writ appeal(s). It would be pertinent to reproduce hereunder the conclusions of the learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 2nd June, 2009."The writ petitions were allowed with the following directions:(a)the impugned memo dated 21-05-2005, is set aside, as violative of principles of natural justice;(b)the Government, in its Revenue Department, shall pass fresh orders, after issuing notice to the petitioners. It shall be open to the petitioners to urge all the grounds before the Government.(c)G.O.Ms.No. 1084, dated 06-06-2005, is upheld, however, with a rider that as and when the rights of the petitioners vis--vis the lands are determined in their favour, it shall be open to them, to pursue their remedies, in this regard;(d)This judgment shall not be treated as a pronouncement or adjudication of any dispute, or question, involved in the matter; and(e)It shall be open to the legal representatives of late Nawab Nursat Jung Bahadur-1, or their authorized agent, to pursue the proceedings before the Government, and the dispute, if any, among them, may be agitated before a competent forum.As is clear from the observations set out in direction (d) above, there was no adjudication or determination of any of the substantive disputes between the parties, particularly with regard to the vitality of the Muntakhab. These disputes are relegated for de novo consideration by the Government, and after notice to the petitioners."The learned Single Judge had specifically clarified that his judgment was not to be treated as a pronouncement for adjudication of any dispute or questions involved in the matter and disputes, if any, among them could be adjudicated before a competent forum. In view of the above, in the appeals filed by the State against the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench was only called upon to decided as to whether the direction to relegate the matter to the State Government was proper or not. The High Court has decided that aspect in the impugned judgment. It is obvious that the appellants cannot rake up those issues in these appeals which are not decided either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.24. Sixthly, Insofar as the decision of the Division Bench on the issue raised before it is concerned, no arguments were even advanced by the appellants questioning the validity thereof. Even otherwise, having gone through the said judgment minutely, we are in complete agreement with the impugned judgement on those aspects, decided by the High Court. To recapitulate in brief it is stated that even the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein (writ petition no. 3421 of 2008) which inter alia sought to challenge memo dated 21st May, 2005 issued by the Revenue Department as illegal and also sought to implement Muntakhab No. 55 of 1955 dated 7th May, 1955, by mutating the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records and return the custody of the property was clearly not maintainable for two reasons. Insofar the memo dated 21st May, 2005, was concerned, the main grievance of the writ petitioners appears to be that the same had been passed without giving any notice to the writ petitioner and that the same could not have reviewed/rescinded the memos dated 6th May, 2004. The said arguments are not tenable on account of the fact that the impugned memo dated 21st May, 2005, only sought to reinforce the memo dated 15th April, 2002, issued by the Government in response to the representation made by Mr. Ali. Therefore, when the impugned memo dated 21st May, 2005 was admittedly not issued at the instance of the writ petitioners there could not have been any question of hearing them prior to the same. Further, neither the impugned memo nor the memo dated 6th May, 2004 (purporting to create rights in favour of the legal heirs of Nawab Nusrat Jung-I) was communicated to the writ petitioners. Hence, insofar as the memo dated 21st May, 2004 is concerned, no cause of action accrued in favour of the writ petitioners to have approached the High Court and, therefore, the only person, if any, who could have challenged the same was Mr. Ali. As far as Mr. Ali, is concerned, as already pointed above, he could not maintain the writ petition as it was not `appropriate remedy as granted by this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. After considering the respective submissions, we find ourselves in agreement with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent. There are various reasons to dismiss these appeals, which are discussed herein below:20. In the first place, it is to be noticed that as far as Mr. Ali is concerned, his writ petition no. 10084 of 2006 which was filed in the High Court after passing of the order dated 31st July, 2007 in SLP(C) No. 23392 of 2007 by this Court, was not maintainable. This Court, by the said order, had permitted him to withdraw his writ petition no. 14434 of 2006 and `to take appropriate remedy. Obviously, the remedy could not be in the form of another writ petition on the same facts and grounds which were pleaded earlier. The High Court has rightly held that having given up his pursuit of public law remedy in earlier abandoned proceedings, filing of the fresh writ petition or pursue pending writ petition no. 10084 of 2006 would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.21. Secondly, the High Court is also right in holding that neither Mr. Ali had established by specific pleadings nor by due authorisation on record that he was authorised to represent the case of 203legal heirs of NusratIt is clear from the above that insofar as Mr. Ali is concerned, his appeals are not even maintainable.22. Thirdly, the High Court has specifically remarked, and rightly so, that even the other appellants did not plead or establish the basis of their claims that they are the heirs of Nusratpointed out above, the High Court has discussed the locus of these appellants (writ petitioners in the High Court) under the caption `who are the writ petitioners? At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the entire discussion in this behalf which compelled the High Court to observe that entirely chaotic and incoherent state of facts were pleaded by all these writ petitioners in their writ petition since we are in agreement with the High Courts analysis.Fifthly, as pointed out above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it was against the appellants, was never challenged by them by filing any writlearned Single Judge had specifically clarified that his judgment was not to be treated as a pronouncement for adjudication of any dispute or questions involved in the matter and disputes, if any, among them could be adjudicated before a competent forum. In view of the above, in the appeals filed by the State against the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench was only called upon to decided as to whether the direction to relegate the matter to the State Government was proper or not. The High Court has decided that aspect in the impugned judgment. It is obvious that the appellants cannot rake up those issues in these appeals which are not decided either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.24. Sixthly, Insofar as the decision of the Division Bench on the issue raised before it is concerned, no arguments were even advanced by the appellants questioning the validity thereof. Even otherwise, having gone through the said judgment minutely, we are in complete agreement with the impugned judgement on those aspects, decided by the High Court. To recapitulate in brief it is stated that even the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein (writ petition no. 3421 of 2008) which inter alia sought to challenge memo dated 21st May, 2005 issued by the Revenue Department as illegal and also sought to implement Muntakhab No. 55 of 1955 dated 7th May, 1955, by mutating the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records and return the custody of the property was clearly not maintainable for two reasons. Insofar the memo dated 21st May, 2005, was concerned, the main grievance of the writ petitioners appears to be that the same had been passed without giving any notice to the writ petitioner and that the same could not have reviewed/rescinded the memos dated 6th May, 2004. The said arguments are not tenable on account of the fact that the impugned memo dated 21st May, 2005, only sought to reinforce the memo dated 15th April, 2002, issued by the Government in response to the representation made by Mr. Ali. Therefore, when the impugned memo dated 21st May, 2005 was admittedly not issued at the instance of the writ petitioners there could not have been any question of hearing them prior to the same. Further, neither the impugned memo nor the memo dated 6th May, 2004 (purporting to create rights in favour of the legal heirs of Nawab Nusratwas communicated to the writ petitioners. Hence, insofar as the memo dated 21st May, 2004 is concerned, no cause of action accrued in favour of the writ petitioners to have approached the High Court and, therefore, the only person, if any, who could have challenged the same was Mr. Ali. As far as Mr. Ali, is concerned, as already pointed above, he could not maintain the writ petition as it was not `appropriate remedy as granted by this Court.