Local authorities must institute a court suit to declare property as escheat under the Act; unilateral declarations without due process are invalid.

ORDER :

K.SARATH, J.

As both these writ petitions arise out of the same subject property and the parties are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both these writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings No.B2/25443/2017 dated 01.04.2021 and the letter No.B2/25443/2017 dated 02.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.2-Local Officer-cum-District Collector as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the eastern portion of the house property bearing Municipal No.3-2-374 admeasuring 657.75 sq. yards out of total extent of 1286.3 sq. yards situated at Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad (for short ‘the subject property’) having purchased from Mrs. Fareedunnisa Begum Khan W/o late Ghulam Ahmed Khan, her son and two daughters through registered sale deed bearing Document No.487 of 2019 dated 08.02.2019. Originally the said house property was purchased by late Ghulam Hussain Khan through registered sale deed dated 16.10.1325 Fasli vide document No.1934 Book I, Volume V at page Nos.12 to 14 total admeasuring 2143 sq. yards along with three constructed buildings situated at Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad and after his death, his wife Afzalunnisa Begum and sons namely Gulam Ahmed Khan and Hamid Ali Khan and daughter Nizamunnisa Begum have succeeded the said property. The husband of the vendor of the petitioners, Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Khan, had inherited the subject property through the compromise decree passed in C.C.C.A.No.27 of 2007 on the file of this Court dated 04.03.2013 filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.11.2006 in O.S.No.74 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, filed for partition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the date of purchase of the subject property, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. Their vendors are paying the property tax, electricity bills and water charges for the last several decades. The Town Survey Register also shows the owner of the house bearing Nos.3-2-374 and 3-2-374/1 as Ghulam Hussain Khan S/o Gulam Ahmed Khan and Afzalunnisa Begum. The petitioners have obtained building permission vide permit No.2/C16/02408/2021 dated 16.02.2021.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that basing on the representation of the People’s representatives, the respondent No.2-Local Officer-cum- District Collector issued notice dated 02.02.2021 under Section 7 of Telangana State Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act, 1974) to the petitioners, who in turn have submitted their replies on 08.02.2021 and 18.02.2021. The respondent No.2 without following due process of law as contemplated under the Act, 1974 has passed the impugned order vide proceedings No.B2/25443/2017 dated 01.04.2021 directing the respondent No.3 to take possession of the land under Section 9 of the Act, 1974 and also issued the impugned letter No.B2/25443/2017 dated 02.12.2021 referring the matter to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for adjudication under Section 11(3) of the Act, 1974.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.3771 of 2022 filed