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

2007 Supreme(AP) 63

Andhra Pradesh High Court
SRI V.V.S.RAO
Sri Qudrat Nawaz Khan, S/o.Late (Died) and others
Vs
The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Defence), Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad and others
WRIT PETITION No.1469 of 1995
Decided On 18-01-2007

Advocates:
Advocate appeared
Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Rajendra Deshmukh
Counsel for the Respondents-1 to 3: G.P. for Land Acquisition
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy, Learned Assistant
Solicitor General

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section 3(b)- Military Lands of India (ACR) Rules 1944, Rule 14; Writ Proceedings Rules 1977, Rule 6- “Person interested”- Land allegedly acquired by Military from original owner in 1941/1950- A third party cannot claim compensation - A writ for declaration of a title would not lie - Petitioners have to satisfy Court that original owner had title to land- Failure of petitioners to satisfy Court that they have right to file writ petition claiming compensation - Issuance of Mandamus after lapse of about 60 years would be travesty of justice- Writ petition dismissed. [Para 9]

       (B) Constitution of India- Article 226- Question of title cannot be gone into in a writ petition- Writ petition seeking Mandamus would lie only for enforcing a right. [Para 9]

       AIR 1992 SC 1018, AIR 1993 SC 1225, (2003) 6 SCC 230:AIR 2003 SC 2686-Relied.

       (C) Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977-Rule 6- When a person comes before Court for redressal of his grievance having regard to nature of proceedings, he is bound to place all documents before Court to enable Court to draw appropriate inference before exercising discretion. Rule 6 throws strict obligation on petitioners to file necessary documents in support of petition averments. [Para 17]

       (1988) 4 SCC 534 - Relied.

       (D) Constitution of India- Article 226- Petitioners have not explained huge delay of about 40 years in claiming compensation. If after lapse of about 60 years, a mandamus is issued it would be travesty of justice. Writ of mandamus should be issued to further a cause and subserve justice and not to subvert it. [Paras 18, 22]

       AIR 1990 SC 10, AIR 1995 SC 1991, (1997) 2 SCC 627; AIR 2000 SC 671- Relied.

ORDER:

The writ petition was originally filed by Qudrat Nawaz Khan, S/o.Col. Omar Daraz Khan of Golconda, Hyderabad. During the pendency of these proceedings, he died and his wife and children are brought on record as legal heirs. A writ of Mandamus is sought for direction to respondent to pass an award under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) for the land admeasuring Acs.24.12 guntas in survey No.36 (Old) corresponding to new survey Nos.207, 208 and 209 situated at Makai Darwaza, Golconda, Hyderabad District (hereinafter called, subject land).

2. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The subject land was originally owned by Col.Omar Daraz Khan. In 1950, subject land was acquired by Military. The land owner approached the authorities for compensation, in vain. He died in 1955. General Power of Attorney (GPA) of first petitioner, Abdul Khadar, unsuccessfully pursued the matter from 1958 to 1983 with the authorities for compensation. The GPA died on 28.1.1983. It is alleged that first petitioner was away from India and working in Saudi Arabia and after retirement he came back and was pursuing the matter with the authorities.

3. The Defence Estate Officer, Cantonment - fourth respondent herein; filed counter affidavit in July 1996. Another counter affidavit was also filed in February 2006. Their case in brief may be noticed. By proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 19.8.1958, an extent of Acs.484.02 guntas in Ibrahim Bagh lines near Makai Darwaza was transferred by the State Government to Government of India, Military of Defence. The land was taken over by fourth respondent as Ex- State Forces Land, which is treated as Government of India property under Article 295(1) of Constitution of India with effect from 01.4.1950. From the date of taking possession on 19.3.1958 the land is in possession of the Defence Ministry and there was no interference by anybody. Military Land Register (MLR) maintained by Defence Estate Office also contains entries about this land in accordance with Rule 14 of Military Lands of India (ACR) Rules, 1944. Swimming pool, training/parade area, Old Park, MI room etc., are existing in the land under the occupation of the Defence Ministry. An extent of Acs.24.12 guntas in survey No.35 (Old) corresponding new survey Nos.207, 208 and 209 also forms part of Acs.484.02 guntas in survey No.35 (Old). This land falls in Ibrahim Bagh lines area near Makai Darwaja and is occupied by pakka defence installations. Military never acquired land in survey No.207 or 209 and never took possession from Late Col.Omar Darwaz Khan. Fourth respondent is not aware of any claim petition filed by father of first petitioner for compensation. The present petition filed by first petitioner is barred by limitation. The correspondence between petitioners and respondent is of no avail, as the latter has no authority to usurp the jurisdiction unless proceedings are initiated under the Act. The subject land claimed by petitioners is in possession of the Defence Ministry for last 38 years and nobody claimed any right or interest in the property.

4. Respondents 1 to 3, Government of Andhra Pradesh, have not filed any counter affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition obtained instructions and argued the matter seeking dismissal of case. Reply affidavit is filed by petitioner No.3 to the counter affidavit of fourth respondent. While asserting that Col.Omar Darwaz Khan is owner of the property, allegation made by first respondent that he was not the owner of the property is denied. A reference is made to Pahani and plan of 1348 and 1353 Faslis. It is further alleged that after inspection, Revenue officials found that name of original owner appears in the revenue records as pattadar. A reference is also made to File No.F2/23388/73 of second respondent in support of the claim.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits














































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