SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 606

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, VAMAN RAO
Union of India rep.by Defence EState Officer, A.P.Circle, Secunderabad - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Mohiuddin - Respondent
Decided On : 08-11-00

Headnote:

Urban Land Act, 1976 - Land case - Layout sanction - Disputed land - W. P. was filed by 62 petitioners who were shown as respondent in all the writ appeals seeking for the relief of writ of Mandamus directing the Executive Officer, Cantonment, to issue sanction of layout plan applied for by the writ petitioners in respect and in conformity with the orders passed by this Court in W.P - Held, A portion of prayer in W. P. relates to the land which is the subject matter in these appeals, the challenge made and the relief sought in the writ petitions are altogether different - Hence, it is appropriate to deal with these writ petitions separately keeping open all the contentions to be urged by the parties instead of clubbing these writ petitions with the writ appeals - Accordingly W. P. are ordered to be deleted from this batch of writ appeals and the office is directed to post the above writ petitions for hearing at an early date - Under these circumstances the discretion exercised by the learned Single judge in straightaway directing the cantonment Board for sanctioning layout does not warrant any interference in these appeals - Appeals dismissed

N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the question involved in all the above writ appeals are common, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) ALL the writ appeals are filed challenging the order of the learned Single judge of this Court in W. P. No. 10804/96. dated 14-11-1997 allowing the writ petition.

( 3 ) W. P. No. 10804/96 was filed by 62 petitioners who were shown as respondent nos. 1 to 62 in all the writ appeals seeking for the relief of writ of Mandamus directing the Executive Officer, secunderabad Cantonment, A. P. Circle. Secunderabad to issue sanction of layout plan applied for by the writ petitioners in respect of Ac. 8. 00 of land in S. No. 170 (part) of Tokatta village, Secunderabad Mandal and in conformity with the orders passed by this Court in W. P. No. 4250/94 dated 30-9-1994 and W. P. No. 6012/95, dated 6-12-1995. The Defence Estate Officer, A. P. Circle, Secunderabad; the Director of defence Estate, Southern Command, Pune; syed Sadiq Ali Khan; Mouzam Ali Khan and Syed Jafer Ali Khan were the other respondents in the writ petition.

( 4 ) W. A. No. 1499/97 has been filed by the union of India represented by the Defence estate Officer and the Director of Defence estate, Southern Command, Pune who were 2nd and 3rd respondents in W. F. No. 10804/96.

( 5 ) W. A. No. 92/98 has been filed by the executive Officer, Secunderabad cantonment Board, A. P. Circle, secunderabad who was 1st respondent in W. P. No. 10804/96.

( 6 ) WRIT Appeal No. 200498 has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh which was impleaded itself as the party to the proceedings at this stage.

( 7 ) W. A. No. 1996/98 has been filed by one Syed Sadiq Ali Khan who was 4th respondent in W. P. No. 10804/96.

( 8 ) W. A. NO. 538/98 has been filed by Mouzam Ali Khan and Syed Jafer Ali Khan who were respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in W. P. No. 10804/96.

( 9 ) W. P. NO. 12490/97 has been filed by mir Mouzam Ali Khan and Syed Jafar Ali khan seeking the relief for issuing a writ of certiorari by calling for the records relating to proceedings No. TT3/625/93, dated 5-3-1997 passed by the Special commissioner, Land Revenue, government of Andhra Pradesh to the extent of holding that the land in sy. No. 170/p to an extent of Ac. 65. 00 with Bungalow No. 215 situated at tokatta (v), Secunderabad as Government land and declare the impugned proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio besides violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

( 10 ) W. P. No. 30880 of 1997 has been filed by Syed Sadiq Ali Khan seeking to quash g. O. Ms. No. 735, Revenue (Assign. III) department, dated 6-9-1997 issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the land in sy. No. 170/1 admeasuring 343-29 gts. is his patta land and for quashing of the consequent orders thereto.

( 11 ) W. P. No. 7121 of 1997 has been filed by the alleged purchasers of the disputed land seeking to quash the proceeding in proc. No. TT3/625/93, dated 5-3-1997, whereunder the land in question was declared as Government land/military Estate.

( 12 ) THE grievance made out in w. A. Nos. 1499/97. 92/98, 538/98, and 2004/98 are almost similar. The grounds urged in W. A. No. 1996/98 and W. A. No. 538/98 in addition to some of the grounds in the above first three writ appeals, are to the effect that the appellants have independent right over the schedule property.

( 13 ) THE controversy involved in all these writ appeals revolves around Ac. 8. 00 of land situated in Sy. No. 170 (Part) (Old Sy. No. 37) of Tokatta village, Secunderbad Mandal.

( 14 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these writ appeals and the writ petitions are as follows:- for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W. P. No. 10804/96 as writ petitioners and the respondents 1 to 6 in addition t































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top