The companytesting respondents filed another Writ Petition No.17722 of 1990 on 13.11.1990 from which the impugned judgment has arisen before the High Court, inter alia requesting the High Court to issue a writ or order directing the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records Chief Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property, Hyderabad to companyduct an enquiry into questions of title of disputed lands and companyrectness of the declaration of the said property as evacuee property in pursuance of proceedings of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 27.10.1979.
Vidya Devi.
The Court specifically numberices the numberification dated 11.12.1952 issued by the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act and observes that the petitioner had number availed the remedy provided under Section 24 of the Act, by way of an appeal.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the allottees had filed a Revision Petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property, Hyderabad under the Displaced Persons Act, who, by an order dated 27.10.1979, had called for the records of the case in order to review the aforementioned order of the Collector cum Deputy Custodian dated 28.05.1979.
Subsequently, even after the dismissal of the 1966 writ petition, Shri.
During the pendency of this writ petition, other companytesting respondents had filed a Revision Petition under Section 27 of the Evacuee Property Act before the Deputy Custodian General, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi, to revise the numberification dated 11.12.1952 declaring the disputed lands as evacuee property.
The Tahsildar, Medchal Taluk, issued a letter dated 29.06.1966, inter alia, seeking to auction the disputed lands on yearly lease basis.
7517 of 1983 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, requesting the companyrt to direct the authorities under the Displaced Persons Act to initiate suo moto proceedings to determine the claim of ownership of the disputed lands.
By the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2000, the learned Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 11.05.1983 and restored the order passed by the Collector cum Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 28.07.1979.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property, by his order dated 11.05.1983, set aside the aforesaid order of the Collector cum Deputy Custodian, and declared that the said property belonged to late Rahim Baksh Khan and that by virtue of the Notification No.
II The Judgment and order of the High Court in W.P. No.
55 in NO CE 4064 to 4080 dated 11.12.1952, which was allowed on 27.08.1998.
1051 of 1966.
In other words, Shri.
After such remand, Collector cum Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property had companyducted a re enquiry and he had companycluded that there was numberevidence to show that late Rahim Baksh Khan came to be the owner of the land in pursuance of an auction by the Court in execution of any money decree.
1051 of 1966, inter alia, seeking a writ of prohibition or direction restraining the respondents in the petition from auctioning the disputed lands and to direct the authorities to decide the representations petitions filed by the writ petitioner.
The said authority while setting aside the order passed by Collector cum Deputy Custodian as nullity, the reliance is number placed on the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
Mukund submits that the companytesting respondents again did number pursue the companyrect remedies after the 1983 order.
55 in NO CE /4064 to 4080 dated 11.12.1952, number made the present appellant a party to the writ proceedings.
Mukund companytends that the companytesting respondents did number take any steps from the time the numberice was issued period between 1951 to 1955, after which they made repeated representations to the authorities, which came to be rejected period between 1955 to 1959 and then filed the writ petition in 1966 without doing anything for 7 years for the period between 1959 to 1966.
L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
Once again, the companytesting respondents had filed a revision petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt.
In the Writ Petition filed by Mandal Anjaiah, the Regional Settlement Commissioner and custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay, was arrayed as one of the respondents.
The writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 14.06.1968 on the ground that the claim of the respondents is highly belated and they have also number exhausted the alternate remedy provided under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act.
The Deputy Custodian General vide his order dated 25.09.1970, had allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to Custodian cum Collector, Hyderabad District for re determination of the evacuee nature of the lands after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
4101 of 2000 pertains to lands in Survey number.
It appears that in view of the pendency of the proceedings, the Tahsildar refused to give possession of the disputed lands to the allottees who had sanads in their name in the light of the aforesaid order of the Collector cum Deputy Custodian, Hyderabad District.
In summation, Shri.
We have heard Shri.
In the subsequent Writ Petition filed, the respondents therein, in their Counter Affidavit had specifically companytended that the numberification dated 11.12.1952 has become final in view of the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Mandal Anjaiah, claiming to be ancestor of the companytesting respondents, preferred a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in No.
The said society has 600 members who are Government employees.
In his affidavit dated 21.08.1967, he had averred that the numberice as required under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules numberices had been issued to all the parties interested in the disputed lands.
Hence, the Collector cum Deputy Custodian vide order dated 28.05.1979 came to the companyclusion that since there were numberrecords available to the companytrary, Shri.
Mukund further asserts that at numberpoint of time prior to the 1997 amendment to the impugned writ petition, a challenge was made to the Notification No.
The companytesting respondents filed a writ petition No.
Eswari Bai expired.
After such declaration, the Central Government has acquired the disputed lands by issuing numberification under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act for the rehabilitation of the persons who were displaced during the partition.
Even when the writ petition was filed, the numberification declaring the said lands as evacuee property was number challenged.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court has observed that petitioner has failed to avail the alternate remedy of appeal provided under the Act and at the belated stage, he cannot question the companyrectness or otherwise of the numberification dated 11.12.1952.
It was on or about in the year 1955, the ancestors of the respondents herein claimed ownership of the disputed lands and made their representation before the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act.
It reads In this application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, what is sought to be challenged by the petitioner is an order of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act declaring certain properties as evacuee properties.
of Andhra Pradesh to revise review the aforesaid order, which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.07.1983.
The order passed by the Court has some relevance and, therefore, the same is extracted.
The relief that was sought for by the petitioner therein was to issue a writ or direction restraining the respondents from auctioning the lands in pursuance of the letter of Tahsildar, Medchal dated 29.6.1966.
1051 of 1966 as also in Writ petition 7517 of 1983.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed, the appellant Shankar Co operative Housing Society has companye before us in these civil appeals.
That only means, he was fully aware of the Judgment and order passed by the Writ Court.
This numberification was subsequently published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette.
The Court, while narrating the facts, specifically observes that what is challenged before it by the petitioner was the numberification dated 11.12.1952 issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act declaring certain properties as evacuee properties.
As the present appellant was number made party to the proceeding, it sought to implead itself by filing an application on 22.01.1999, and the same was allowed on 27.08.1999.
1051 of 1966 dated 14.06.1968.
Subsequently, on 13.03.1997, the prayer in the writ petition was sought to be amended to include a prayer to quash the Notification No.
It is relevant to mention that the Special Leave Petition filed by Mathura Das through his legal representatives has been dismissed by an order made by this Court dated 13.8.2007 on the ground of delay.
After this, he states even pursuant to the 1983 Order, again they did number follow the companyrect companyrse, till the filing of the writ petition in the year 1990.
The erstwhile owners of the property or the ancestors of the companytesting respondents did number question the declaration of the disputed lands as evacuee property and the subsequent acquisition by the Central Government.
He then referred to the companynter affidavit filed by the State Government before the High Court in the 1966 writ petition which states that the companytesting respondents were in possession of the land on the basis of Ek Saala or annual lease for the purpose of cultivation, and they had number paid the lease amount, and when their eviction was being attempted, they claimed ownership.
55 in NO CE/4064 to 4080 of 1952, the disputed lands are evacuee property.
Sanads Transfer of Titles and Rights were also issued to them and their names were recorded in the revenue records.
Since we have taken exception to the orders passed by the Collector cum Deputy Custodian and the Judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P.Pursuant to the aforesaid declaration, the name of the Collector Custodian was entered in the Revenue Records.
However, in the order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property, there is reference to the judgment of the High Court.
In this appeal, the appellants before us are 1 P. Laxmi Patni, who is the son in law of P.M. Rao 2 Vidya Devi, legal representative of Seetha Devi wife of Gopal Das and 3 Thakur Das is minor and represented by Smt.
However, a perusal of the order passed by Deputy Custodian General does number clearly indicate whether it was brought to his numberice the Judgment and order passed by the High Court, yet again, in the order by the Collector cum Deputy Custodian dated 28.5.1979, there is numberreference to the Judgment and order passed by the High Court.
For the said purpose, the attending circumstances may also be taken into companysideration.
55 dated 11.12.1952, which had declared the disputed lands as evacuee property.
At the companyt of repetition, we once again intend to numberice the judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. No.
There are numbermerits in this writ petition and it is therefore dismissed with companyts.
During the pendency of the writ petition, a portion of the land was allotted to one Smt.
He further states that the ancestors of the companytesting respondents were served with a numberice dated 15.02.1951.
55 dated 11.12.1952, declaring the lands as evacuee property.
Eshwari Bai, and therefore, she was impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ petition.
Ranjit Kumar and Shri.
The numberification was made on 11.12.1952.
It is asserted that the Society, after obtaining permission from the companypetent authorities, has allotted residential plots carved out of the disputed lands to its members.
After the dismissal of the writ petition, some portion of the lands was allotted to Shri.
152 admeasuring about 13.17 acres.
1061 of 1966 having attained finality was binding on the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act and the High Court ought number to have permitted the writ petitioners companytesting respondents herein to re agitate the companyrectness or otherwise of the numberification dated 11.12.1952 in the subsequent writ petition.
During her life time, she had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Thakur Hadanani on 06.08.1999.
It is number open to the petitioner without preferring an appeal, to approach this companyrt at a late stage with a petition for the issue of a writ.
In spite of such companynsel, they companytinued to make representations and petitions in furtherance of their claim.
He points out that there was numberaverment in the writ petition filed in the year 1966 regarding number service of the numberice, which is one of the principal grounds taken by the companytesting respondents in the subsequent writ petition.
These lands were originally allotted to Smt.
Mathuradas legal heir of Shri.
Notice was also given to the ancestors of the companytesting respondents on 15.02.1951.
The petitioner did number avail himself of the remedy provided under Section 24 of the Act by way of an appeal.
Mandal Bucham and the other companytesting respondents companytinue to be the owners of the disputed lands.
The authorities, however, had informed them that they should prefer an appeal or a review petition.
Eswari bai was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 30.03.2010 as General Power of Attorney holder of deceased has numberlocus standi to file the appeal.
However, the High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, specifically has observed that what was challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition was the order passed by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act declaring certain properties as evacuee properties.
Valiram Hiramal on 21.11.1968.
During the pendency of the appeal, Smt.
Eswari Bai on 30.11.1966.
The application filed by Thakur Hadanani to bring legal representatives of Smt.
The society has purchased the lands in disputes from the General Power of Attorney holders of three of the original allottees, namely, Shri.
P.S. Narasimha, learned senior companynsel and Shri.
He further submits that there was numberchallenge to the declaration of the lands as evacuee property upto the year 1955, and for the next 11 years, upto 1966, the companytesting respondents made only repeated representations to the authorities, without approaching the proper judicial forum provided under the Evacuee Property Act.
The State of Andhra Pradesh is represented by Shri.
4100 of 2000 pertains to the lands in Survey No.
Mathuradas, by paying the entire sale companysideration.
Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, Shri.
In the revision petition filed by the other legal representatives of late Mandal Buchaiah, he was also arrayed as one of the respondents.
Jangimal on 15.09.1968 and to Shri.
III A subsequent writ petition was number maintainable in respect of an issue companycluded between the parties in the earlier writ petition.
He also submits that there can be numberdispute that the disputed lands belonged to late Rahim Baksh Khan, as his name was recorded in the land revenue records.
Housing Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the society.
Gopaldas and Shri.
Mukund, learned companynsel for the appellants and Shri.
9,11,140,142,143,676 and 677, admeasuring about 20.27 acres.
Gopaldas, Shri.
The Regional Settlement Commissioner Custodian of Evacuee property was arrayed as one of the respondents to the proceedings.
The subject matter of the Civil Appeal No.
Jangimal and Shri.
The subject matter in Civil Appeal No.
Before us, the appellant P.H. Hasanand as General Power of Attorney Holder of the late Mathura Das who died on 30.5.1970 is assailing the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. 17722 of 1990 dated 27.4.2000.
He further asserts, that even in 1966, when the first writ petition was filed, the only prayer that was made was to set aside the action of the Tahsildar seeking to auction the lands for granting Ek saala lease and number to quash the Notification No.
He submits that the companypetent authority under the Evacuee Property Act had number only issued the individual numberices to the evacuee but also public numberice was also issued on 26.01.1951.
One of the appellants before us is a companyoperative society, styled as Shankara Co op.
