Partly allowed

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by Chief v. Subodh Kumar Sanghi

Telangana HC3 Nov 2008WA/1411/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged observations by the Single Judge suggesting the land was evacuee property despite government claims it was old grant land. The court deleted the observations to allow independent enquiry on the petitioners' request to reclassify the land.

What did the court decide?

The observations made by the learned Single Judge in para-9 of the impugned order are deleted to facilitate independent enquiry.

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by Chief Vs Subodh… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH &

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL No.1411 of 2008

¶7

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/09/2008 in WP NO : 26153 OF 2007 on the file of

¶8

the High Court.)

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by Chief Executive Officer,

Secunderabad

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 Subodh Kumar Sanghi S/o.G.P.Sanghi

¶15

r/o.1-3-183/40.46, plot No.36, New Bakaram Hyderabad

¶16

2 The Director, Defence Estates, Pune.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.SRINIVAS

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

Form-NIC-OGS/WA { TRK }

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶25

WRIT APPEAL No.1411 of 2008

¶26

JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy )

¶27

The appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2008 in W.P.26153/2007, wherein the said writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by respondent No.1, was disposed of, directing that the writ petitioner shall make a representation within two weeks seeking change of entry in General Land Register with regard to nature of the property from B3 to B4 category and thereafter, the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad shall forward the same to the officer concerned who is competent to order for change of categorization of land from B3 to B4 in General Land Register.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶29

The appellant herein is the 1^st respondent in the writ petition. The 1^st respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order declaring the action of the 1^st respondent therein in classifying the property bearing Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring 479 sq.yards, Karkhana lane, Secunderabad, Contonment, Secunderabad as B- 3 land in the General Land Register notwithstanding the sale of the same by the custodian of Evacuee Property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 way back in 1957 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent therein to treat the said property as B-4 land in the General Land Register by making suitable alternation.

¶30

The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner claims that the subject property was the evacuee property, admeasuring 479 sq.yards and the same was purchased by one B.S.laxmanachari from the custodian of Evacuee Property under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, who in turn sold the same to Smt.Sabhia Roofi and Smt.Ayesha Nayeem, and the

¶31

writ petitioner purchased the said house property from the said Smt.Sabhia Roofi and Smt.Ayesha Nayeem under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006. According to him, on coming to know that the property purchased by him has been shown as B-3 property in the General Land Register, he submitted various representations seeking change of categorization of land from B-3 to B-4, but his representations remained unattended, and hence, the writ petition is filed seeking a direction as stated supra.

¶32

The appellant/1^st respondent filed a counter denying that the subject property was evacuee property and contending that it is an old grant property vested in the Government and the same was accordingly entered under Category B-3 in the General Land Register.

¶33

The learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, giving liberty to the writ petitioner to submit representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence through the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad for change of categorization from B-3 to B-4 in General Land Register, observed in para-9 that “ a fact remains that the property claimed by the petitioner was once a evacuee property and thereby the administration of evacuee property took custody of the same and put the same to auction. Such is the situation, it is impermissible for the respondents to contend that the property in occupation of the petitioner is a Government property. ” Aggrieved by the said observations, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the above observations would amount to an admission on the part of the appellant that the property is evacuee property though in fact they have denied the same in the counter, and specifically contended that the said property is old grant property and

¶35

classified as B-3 in General Land Register. So long as the said entry in General Land Register describing the said property as old grant in B-3 category remains, the question of the property being declared as evacuee property may not arise.

¶36

Be that as it may, the above observations of the learned single Judge ought not to come in the way of independent enquiry of the claim by the concerned competent authority while disposing of the representation by the writ petitioner/1^st respondent seeking change of categorization from B-3 to B-4. Hence, in order to facilitate independent enquiry by the competent authority and passing appropriate orders on merits on the representation of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner seeking change of categorization of the subject property from B- 3 to B4, it would be appropriate to delete the said observations made by the learned single Judge in para-9 of the impugned order. The competent authority is, therefore, directed to dispose of the representation that may be made by the writ petitioner in terms of the liberty given to him by the learned single Judge, in accordance with law, and without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order regarding the nature and classification of the subject property.

¶37

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

__________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J

¶39

______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J

¶40

Dated: 03.11.2008 Dsr

¶41

........REGISTRAR

¶42

¶43

The Director, Defence Estates, Pune 2.2 CD copies

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by Chief v. Subodh Kumar Sanghi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by Chief v. Subodh Kumar Sanghi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The agriculture Market Committee Badepally Vs The Labour Court

Secy. Apseb. Hyd and Anr. Vs M/S.Sri Vishnu Cements Ltd. Seethapuram

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling

P.Ramudu Ankiraopalli Kollapur Vs the Se Apseb Mb.Nagar and Another

Sri Raza Ali Vs The Deputy Registrar/ Arbitrator

Mohd. Mustaffudin Khan Vs Y. Ganna Reddy