2016 Supreme(AP) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DILIP B. BHOSALE & S.V. BHATT, JJ.
State of Telangana rep. by District Collector, Rangareddyt Dist. Hyderbad – Petitioner
Versus
An Authority under Section 24(4) read with Section 34 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 14066 & 14067 of 2006
Decided On : 12-02-2016
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
DISPLACED PERSONS COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION ACT : S.14(2), S.8, S.9, ., S.24, S.19, S.20
DISPLACED PERSONS COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION RULES : R.51, R.53, R.54, R.55, R.56, R.86, R.52, ., R.34(e), R.72, R.2(g), R.50
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.6
REPEAL ACT : .
Headnote
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Laws Repeal Act, 2005 - Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Section 24 - Possession of land - Displaced persons claims - Petitioner in these two writ petitions both writ petitions seek similar relief gist of prayer in first writ petition - Respondent and proceedings of Secretary to Government Revenue Department State of Telangana Hyderabad and quash impugned proceedings as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction vitiated by malice and contrary to provisions - Respondent in purported exercise of revision jurisdiction of DPCR Act entertained revisions in File - Extent of land as already noticed covered by allotment orders - Held, It is further contended that orders of allotment are contrary to principles of natural justice - Writ petitions at instance of State Government against orders passed DPCR Act is not maintainable is merely referred to be rejected in view of findings already recorded by us on questions framed for decision - Respondent are compelled to observe has literally doled out valuable Government property worth hundreds or thousands of crores of rupees in favor of claimants without semblance of authority and/or contrary to scheme of the DPCR Act/Rules - Scheme of DPCR Act is not to entertain belated claims and provide exemplary or extra ordinary payment of compensation to displaced persons - Writ Petitions allowed (Para 29)
For the Petitioners:Advocate General.
For the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue.
S.V. Bhatt, J.
1. The State of Telangana, represented by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, is the petitioner in these two writ petitions. Both writ petitions seek similar relief. The gist of the prayer in the first writ petition is as follows:
“.....issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to call for the records leading up to and inclusive of proceedings No.SEP3/19/2001 dated 26.02.2003 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabd/2nd respondent and proceedings No.35847/JA.1/2003-4 dated 28.06.2006 of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad and quash the impugned proceedings, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, vitiated by malice and contrary to the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act,1950 and the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.”
1.1 In W.P.No.14067 of 2006, the proceedings SEP3/104/1999 dated 26.02.2003 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad/2nd respondent, and 35848/J.A.1/2003-19 dated 28.06.2006 of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad, are challenged.
2. The questions raised and controversies involved in these writ petitions center around the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short ‘the DPCR Act’), the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the DPCR Rules’), the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and Displaced persons claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Repeal Act, 2005).
3. In W.P.No.14066 of 2006, the 2nd respondent, through allotment order No.SEP3/19/2001 dated 26.02.2003, in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under the DPCR Act and the DPCR Rules, issued the following allotment orders in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 10 (for short ‘the claimants’).
“Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department Office of the Settlement Commissioner & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.
ALLOTMENT ORDER Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Dated: 26.02.2003 File No.SEP3/19/2001
Name and address of the Allottee Index No. Particulars of the Allottee’s Properties verified under the Claims Act.
RAMESH PARASRAM MALANI & (7) S/HB-2/343 43.7 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PARASRAM RAMCHAND, 303, DISHA APARTMENTS, SHYAM KARAN ROAD, AMEEERPET, HYDERABAD-16.
1. You are hereby allotted following agricultural land in the Hyderabad State on Quasi-permanent basis from the date of this order.
| District | Taluka | Village | Sy.No.allotted | Local acres allotted | Std.Acres Allotted |
| Ranga Reddy | Rajendra-Nagar | Poppalguda to 328 & 331 (Part) | 301 to 308, 325 | 148.30 | 19.26 |
2. You will be liable to pay Land Revenue/Rent/Cess and any other dues which may be payable to the Government or to Local Bodies under any law for the time being in force in Andhra Pradesh State.
3. The allotment will be liable to be cancelled if:-
(i) You are found to have made a false statement or declaration in the application or in the course of scrutiny thereof or have committee fraud in obtaining allotment of the said land.
(ii) You fail to discharge any obligations as mentioned above or that may be prescribed hereafter;
(iii) You fail to pay the land revenue/rent/cess or any other dues which may be payable by you to the Government or to the local bodies.
4. Please return the under-noted acknowledgement duly signed by you by Return post. Please contact the Collector concerned for possession.
OFFICE SEAL // BY ORDER//
Sd/-
SECRETARY
For Settlement Commissioner &
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,
Hyderabad.
Two copies to the Collector, Ranga Reddy district with a request that the above allottee may be put in possession of the said land and the fact intimated to this office.
One co