Ksb Ali vs State Of A.P. .

3) As mentioned above, these appeals have long history which has been taken note of, in extenso, by the High Court in its impugned common judgment dated 18th July, 2012, whereby number of writ appeals have been decided. As the impugned judgment records the chronology of the relevant facts correctly and no mistake is pointed out by any of the counsel appearing before us in regard to factual narrative, we can conveniently and safely reproduce these facts from the said judgment.

In respect of the lands in Bagh-e-Asifnagar (another village having lands of Nusurat Jung-1), the Atiyat Court held that each of Maashadars (holders of the property) is entitled to his respective share and the extents being small the Collector should Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 5 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) formulate proposals for disposal of lands by sale or otherwise after obtaining permission from the Government; should dispose of the same and distribute the money among the Maashadars. 3.8 Gulam Mohammed and another, aggrieved by the decision of the Atiyat Court dated 15th February, 1954 preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue, which was rejected by the order dated 24 th September, 1954 and the order of the Atiyat Court was upheld. The order of Atiyat Court was placed before the Revenue Minister in the form of a note and approved by him on 22 nd December, 1954. The Muntakhab did not set out the number of Sendhi (excise) trees on the land and the claimants were therefore denied their consequent rights.

3.9 The claimants applied to the Assistant Nazim Atiyat for amendment of the Muntakhab (for inclusion of Sendhi trees). The application was rejected. Claimants then approached the Atiyat Court which also rejected their claim. They unsuccessfully approached the Board of Revenue and thereafter filed W.P.No. 227 of 1960. On 1st April, 1963 this Court allowed the writ petition and declared the claimants entitled to inclusion of income from Sendhi trees in the Muntakhab, directed the respondents to amend the Muntakhab and awarded Rs.3,980-4-0 as maash. In Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 6 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) the judgment in W.P.No.227 of 1960 the High Court however declined to grant the relief of restoration of the property. 3.10 One Mr. K.S.B. Ali (Mr. Ali) (claiming to represent 203 legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-1) approached the Government several times seeking release of lands covered by the Muntakhab in favour of the legal heirs.

3.14 On 15th April, 2002 the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, considered the order of this Court (dated 09-07-2001 in W.P.No. 20298 of 1993) and rejected (by an elaborately reasoned order) the request of Mr. Ali for release of the lands as per the Muntakhab. By a subsequent Memo dated 6th May, 2004, however, the order dated 15 th April, 2002 was withdrawn, again by the Principal Secretary to the Government. The Memo dated 6th May, 2004 records no reasons whatsoever for rescinding the earlier elaborate order and was issued pursuant to representation of Mr. Ali for reconsideration of his request, for implementing the Muntakhab. The Memo dated 6 th May, 2004 merely states: Government after careful examination of the issue as per the Act and Rules in force, hereby withdraw the orders issued in the Government Memo 1stcited and the CCLA was directed to instruct the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the concerned authorities to implement the orders of Atiyat Court issued in Muntakhab No. 57 of 1955.

that open land would not fall within the definition of ‘Home Farm Lands’ as per provisio to Section 17 of the Regulation; that the Muntakhab was issued and acted upon by drawing commutation from the Nizam-e-Atiyat; and therefore there was no basis for any further claim in the matter. This Memo also concluded that the issue was finally decided by the 15-04-2002 order issued with approval of the competent authority; and that as the matter was finally decided, the subsequent orders dated 06-05-2004 and 31-07-2004 were without jurisdiction and competence. 3.17 Thereafter, tenders were issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for sale of Ac.100-00 in Kokapet village which was part of the subject lands and Mr. Ali filed W.P. No. 14439 of 2006 challenging the said tenders and sought a declaration that the said authority had no right in the property of the petitioners and the auction and sale process was illegal. 3.18 A learned single Judge on 14 th July, 2006 dismissed the writ petition ruling that under Article 226 of the Constitution an inquiry as to questions of title in immoveable property cannot be considered and observed that the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for appropriate declaration and injunction. Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 11 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) 3.19 Thereagainst W.A.No. 887 of 2006 was filed by Mr. Ali. This appeal was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court, by orders dated 26-10-2007, after contest. Though, SLP was filed thereagainst in this Court, the writ petitioner/appellant – Mr. Ali sought leave to withdraw W.P.No.14439 of 2006, W.A.No. 887 of 2006 and for rescinding the order in the writ petition and writ appeal. This request was granted by this Court with liberty to Mr. Ali to pursue “appropriate remedy”, leaving the issues open. 3.20 However, after the aforesaid order of this Court (dated 13 th December, 2007) several writ petitions were filed seeking reliefs already adverted to and these were tagged on to W.P.No. 10084 of 2006, earlier filed by Mr. Ali and were disposed of by the common judgment dated 02-06-2009 by a Single Judge of the High Court.

5) Challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, writ appeals were filed primarily by the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). It is significant to mention that as far as appellants in these appeals, who claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-I and rightful owner of the subject lands, are concerned, they did not challenge the order of the Single Judge in respect of those findings which had been rendered against them. Before we take note of the salient features of the decision rendered by the Division Bench it would also be apposite to remark that the core issues is as to whether the subject lands in Kokapet village belong to the State or it is the purported legal heirs of Nusrat Jung who are entitled thereto. The chronology of Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 13 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) events narrated above would also make it clear that the claimants have primarily rested their claim on the basis of the order dated 15th February, 1954 passed by the Atiyat Court 1 which held that the subject lands deserved to be confirmed as Madad-e-Maash (grant-in-aid) in their favour. They also argued that the aforesaid order had been approved by the Revenue Minister on 22 nd December, 1954 and, thus, rights in their favour had got crystalised. As per them, it is the Atiyat Court which was competent to decide such a dispute and once the rights of the appellants were recognised by the Atiyat Court, the State Government was bound thereby. Further submission of the appellants was that memos dated 21 st May, 2005 and G.O. dated 6th June, 2005, no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants and, therefore, the said memo and G.O. were violative of principle of natural justice (which contention was accepted by the learned Single Judge as well).

(c) The decision/order in Memos dated 06-5-2004 and 31-7-2004 were not formally communicated to any of the writ petitioners including Sri K.S.B.Ali, the representationist at whose instance and on whose representation these Memos were issued;

(i) In view of the foregoing analyses, for the afore-stated reasons and in the light of our conclusions supra, the common judgment dated 02.06.2009 in W.P.Nos.10084 of 2006; 22619 of 2007; 3421, 7747, 8761 and 12928 of 2008; 3750 and 6425 of 2009 is set aside and the several writ appeals are allowed, with costs; and for reasons alike W.P.No.29063 of 2009 is dismissed and with costs.”

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.

“The writ petitions were allowed with the following directions:

25) For all these reasons, these appeals are dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of this Court, we may refrain from awarding any costs.

OCTOBER 4, 2017 Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 36 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) (REVISED) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII-A (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos. 18755-18756/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-07-2012 in WA No. 1164/2009 and WA No. 1311/2009 passed by the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad) KSB ALI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 19156-19158/2013 SLP(C) No. 27561-27563/2013 SLP(C) No. 27299-27301/2013 SLP(C) No. 38018-38020/2013 SLP(C) No. 38022-38024/2013 SLP(C) No. 27434/2013 SLP(C) No. 38025/2013 SLP(C) No. 9996-10001/2015 SLP(C) No. 1298/2015 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1132/2016 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1639/2016 Date : 04-10-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.

Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.

Petitioner-in-person Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR For Respondent(s) M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 37 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.

Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Application for substitution is allowed. Pending applications stand disposed of.

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 38 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII-A (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos. 18755-18756/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-07-2012 in WA No. 1164/2009 and WA No. 1311/2009 passed by the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad) KSB ALI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 19156-19158/2013 SLP(C) No. 27561-27563/2013 SLP(C) No. 27299-27301/2013 SLP(C) No. 38018-38020/2013 SLP(C) No. 38022-38024/2013 SLP(C) No. 27434/2013 SLP(C) No. 38025/2013 SLP(C) No. 9996-10001/2015 SLP(C) No. 1298/2015 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1132/2016 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 1639/2016 Date : 04-10-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.

Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.

Petitioner-in-person Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR For Respondent(s) M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 39 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS) Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.

Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Manju Jetley, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Application for substitution is allowed. Pending applications stand disposed of.

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 Page 40 of 40 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013 – BATCH MATTERS)