THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Nikunj Dugar learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 24.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10368 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner against the inaction of the appellant (the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) in failing to consider the representation dated 27.03.2024 made by the writ petitioner and sought for a direction on the respondents therein including the appellant (respondent No.8) to complete the proceedings pending under the repealed Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’). The direction, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, addressing unresolved issues concerning the lands in four Survey Numbers i.e., Sy.No.122/1 admeasuring Acs.10.21 gts., Sy.No.396/2 admeasuring Ac.1.16 gts., Sy.No.438 admeasuring Acs.17.22 gts. and Sy.No.396/4 admeasuring Acs.13.20 gts., which were not included in Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962.

2. The writ petitioner/the respondent No.1 filed 2 I.As. (IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024) for interim directions on the respondents (including the appellant herein i.e., the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) against mutations or alteration of Revenue Records of the lands contained in the four survey numbers and to restrain the respondents from creating any third party interest in those lands.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by directing the appellant/the respondent No.8 – Competent Officer to dispose of Application No.1 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner or the predecessor in-interest or legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum, within a period of three months from the date of the impugned order and also imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- to be payable by the appellant/the respondent No.8 as they had failed to settle the dispute and dispose of the Application filed by the petitioner, even after the lapse of 25 years.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Counsel has taken us through the relevant provisions of the 1951 Act and the subsequent repeal and reinstatement thereof. We have also perused the notifications and communications with regard to the repeal.

5. The appellant herein, who was the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition, is the Competent Officer appointed by the State Government under section 4 of the 1951 Act vide G.O.M.S.No.1042, Revenue (L.A.) Department, dated 16.11.1991. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was represented before the learned Single Judge by his General Power of Attorney holder vide General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.2019. The Writ Petitioner claims to be the predecessor-in-interest of the lands in the four survey numbers which were classified as ‘Evacuee Property’ under the 1951 Act under the custodian of a Competent Officer who was appointed under the 1951 Act.

6. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner claims that the property was owned by one Nooruddin Hasan and Saifuddin Khalid, sons of Muneer Ahmed. A claim was initiated by Saleha Fatima Begum, daughter of Muneer Ahmed along with her sister and mother. The properties being recognized as Composite Properties with respective shares of the evacuees and non-evacuees being determined and established. The Competent Officer, entrusted with the custody of the properties, conducted their sale as authorised by section 10 of the 1951 Act and Saleha Fatima Begum made payment of Rs.38,415/-, consequent to which the lands were acquired by Saleha Fatima Begum through a Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962. Although Saleha Fatima Begum became undisputed owner of the properties. It was later discovered that the Competent Officer omitted to include the lands in the four survey numbers were not