Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 974

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
KSB Ali – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18755-18756 of 2013) With Civil Appeal Nos. 15576-15578 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 27299-27301 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 15582 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 27434 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 15579-15581 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 27561-27563 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 15583-15585 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 38018-38020 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 15586-15588 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 38022-38024 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 15589 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 38025 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 15591-15596 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 9996-10001 of 2015), Civil Appeal No. 15598 of 2017 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 26494 of 2017, @ SLP (Civil) No... Cc1639 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 15573-15575 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19156-19158 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 15597 of 2017 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 26493 of 2017 @ SLP (Civil) No....Cc1132 of 2016) and Civil Appeal No. 15590 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 1298 of 2015)
Decided On : 04-10-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, (Petitioner-in-person) V. N. Raghupathy, Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advs.
For the Respondents: M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, D. Mahesh Babu, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, P. N. Puri, G. N. Reddy, Manju Jetley, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
When supreme Court held that writ petition was not maintainable and directed for its withdrawal with liberty to take appropriate remedy, filing of another writ petition could not be the appropriate remedy.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 166(3) – Business Rules – Mandatory in nature – Authentication of orders. (Para 11)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Supreme Court holding writ petition filed before High Court by appellant not maintainable – Directing to withdraw the same and giving liberty to take appropriate remedy – Appropriate remedy cannot be by way of another writ petition – High Court rightly holding that filing of another writ petition constituted an abuse of the process of the Court. (Para 20)
       (c) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 136 – Appellant/writ petitioner claiming to be authorized to represent 203 legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-I – Claim not established by specific pleading or authorization from legal heirs – Even those heirs not establishing that they are the heirs of Nusrat Jung-I – Held writ petition and the instant appeal not maintainable. (Para 21, 22)
       (d) Administration of justice – Judgment of single Judge of High Court, to the extent against appellants, never challenged in writ appeal – Cannot be challenged before Supreme Court. (Para 23)
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Government Memos neither issued at instance of writ petitioners nor creating in any right in their favour – Petitioners not required to be heard before issue of those Memos – Petitioners not having cause of action for filing writ petitions – Only person entitled to file writ petition directed to withdraw the same and take appropriate remedy – Filing another writ petition by that person equally bad – Not maintainable. (Para 24)
       (2010) 5 SCC 213; AIR 1952 SC 181; (1955) 1 SCR 1011; Vol IX (2010) SLT 580; AIR 1963 SC 395; (2009) 15 SCC 705; (2003) 10 SCC 121 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       This case relates to disputes of ownership of lands left by Nawab Nusrat Jung Bahadur-1 who died issueless and intestate.
       Finding of the Court:
       The writ petitions are not maintainable.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The Supreme Court emphasized that when a writ petition is declared not maintainable and is directed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy, filing another writ petition is not considered an appropriate course of action. Such a subsequent filing could constitute an abuse of the judicial process (!) .
The Court clarified that a person claiming to represent multiple legal heirs must establish specific authorization or pleadings to substantiate their authority. In the absence of such proof, the claim to represent heirs or to have a litigable interest is invalid, rendering the petition and appeal not maintainable (!) (!) .
The Court held that disputes over ownership of land, especially involving the State, are inherently judicial in nature and cannot be adjudicated by executive authorities through administrative orders or memos unless such decisions are properly authenticated and issued in accordance with constitutional and procedural requirements (!) (!) .
The Court observed that decisions or orders issued as uncommunicated administrative memos, which do not create or recognize rights, are inoperative and cannot be considered as valid executive decisions. Such memos lack legal efficacy unless properly authenticated and communicated (!) .
The Court found that the impugned memos and orders, which sought to rescind or implement previous decisions, did not comply with the formal requirements of legal decisions under constitutional provisions. Consequently, they could not be deemed valid or binding (!) .
The Court highlighted that the jurisdiction to decide questions of ownership and title of immovable property lies exclusively with the courts. Administrative or executive bodies do not have the authority to adjudicate such disputes, and their decisions cannot have the effect of determining ownership rights (!) .
The Court concluded that the claims based on orders of a specialized court (such as the Atiyat Court) cannot be automatically binding on the State unless those orders are recognized as final judgments or decrees issued through proper judicial proceedings. The finality of such orders depends on their proper validation and communication (!) .
The Court dismissed the appeals, noting that the persons asserting rights or claiming to be heirs must establish their claims through proper legal procedures and documentation. Without such proof, their claims cannot be entertained or considered legitimate (!) (!) .
It was emphasized that the conduct of the parties, including the withdrawal of earlier proceedings and the failure to challenge adverse judgments, impacts the maintainability of subsequent petitions or appeals. Filing multiple petitions without proper authorization or establishing standing can be viewed as an abuse of process (!) .
Overall, the Court reaffirmed that disputes over land ownership involving the State and private claimants must be resolved through judicial proceedings, with administrative actions being valid only if they are properly authenticated, communicated, and within the scope of lawful authority (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

Leave granted.

2. Nawab Nusrat Jung Bahadur-1 (Nusrat Jung-I) had purchased 1635 acres and 34 guntas of land in Kotham Kunta, also known as Asad Nagar, which is now renamed as Kokapet village. This land was purchased way back in 19th Century, while sale deed was registered sometime in the year 1852. Nusrat Jung-I died issueless in 1895 and his widow also died thereafter on 10th October, 1916. Nusrat Jung-I had two cousins, Nawab Ghulam Hussain and Nawab Mohd. Sardar. Disputes about the aforesaid land (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject lands') erupted almost 70 years ago and after protected litigation, which is having chequered history, the said disputes have finally landed in this Court. Hundreds of persons claiming themselves to be the successors in interest of Nusrat Jung-I have led their claim on the subject lands. On the other hand, the state of Andhra Pradesh claims that it is the State which is the legal owner of the property in-question.

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.

FACTUAL EVENTS IN BRIEF:

3.1 Under a sale deed dated 17th Rabi Awal, 1269 H (1852 A.D.) Nusrat Jung-1 purchased the schedule property, of an extent of Ac.1635.35 gts., from the vendors, the five sons of Mir Jouhar Ali khan, son of Mir Hussain Ali Khan alias Asad Nawaz Jung (late), the wives of Mir Jouhar Ali Khan - Imtiazunissa Begum, Hayatunissa Begum and the daughters of Riazunissa Begum (the wife of Mir Asad Nawaj Jung) - Navrooz Begum and Moula Begum. The property then known as Koutham Kunta and thereafter as Asadnagar is presently Kokapet village.
3.2 Nusrat Jung-1 died issueless around 1875 leaving behind the widow - Rahimunnisa Begum, who died on 10-10-1916. Nusrat Jung-1 had two paternal first cousins - Nawab Gulam Hussain and Nawab Md. Sardar.
3.3 On 16th January, 1916 the entire properties of late Nusrat Jung-1 were taken over by Sarf-e-Khas Mubarak (the private secretariat of the Nizam) for supervision. A judicial branch of Sarf-e-Khas Mubarak initiated succession inquiry which was later transferred to the Court of Nazim Atiyat which was constituted under provisions of the 1952 Act.
3.4 In 1920 the heirs of Nusrat Jung-I represented to the Nizam for grant of Kokapet Jagir in their favour. By a Firman dated 15thJamadeeussani-1339-H, the Nizam decreed rejection of the representation and granted only maintenance allowance, on compassionate grounds.
3.5 In 1949, Jagirs were abolished under the Abolition of Jagirs Regulation and in 1359F the A.P. (T.A.) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation was enacted providing for interim allowance payable, determination of commutation and abolition of Jagirs. Then followed the 1952 Act, providing for Atiyat enquiries.
3.6 The Atiyat Court to which inquiry was transferred, as pointed out above, by its order, dated 15-02-1954 held that lands in Kokapet village deserve to be confirmed as Madad-e-Maash (grant-in-aid) in favour of heirs of the late Nusrat Jung-1; that though the land enjoyed by the holders as Madad-E-Maash was subsequently constituted into a separate village; the Maash (the property) will be deemed to have been continued only as Arazi (inam lands), is confirmed as such and Kokapet was regarded as a village only for administrative purposes.
3.7 The Atiyat Court also held that Kokapet was taken over by the Government under the Abolition of Jagirs Regulation; this action was not challenged by Maashadars and the question of appointing Qabiz for lands included in the village does not arise. In respect of the lands in Bagh-e-Asifnagar (another village hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 974

IMPORTANT POINTWhen supreme Court held that writ petition was not maintainable and directed for its withdrawal with liberty to take appropriate remedy, filing of another writ petition could not be the appropriate remedy.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
When supreme Court held that writ petition was not maintainable and directed for its withdrawal with liberty to take appropriate remedy, filing of another writ petition could not be the appropriate remedy.