Dismissed

The Defence Estate Officer v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC9 Oct 2009WP/16258/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Defence Estates Officer challenging the Chief Commissioner's observations on General Land Register entries related to a court-issued sale certificate, holding that the statutory remedy of appeal is the appropriate recourse.

What did the court decide?

Discontinuation of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

The Defence Estate Officer Vs The Chief Commissioner of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16258 OF 2002

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Defence Estates Officer, A.P., Circle, Secunderabad.

¶8

…. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad and Others

¶11

…. Respondents

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.16258 OF 2002

¶14

JUDGMENT:

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad with a prayer to pass an appropriate order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to proceedings No.NA2/542/2002 dated 22-3-2002 of the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad and declare the order as arbitrary, illegal and violative of rights guaranteed to the Central Government under the Constitution of India and further declare the Central Government as the owner and possessor of the aforesaid property and Sri Hoshang S.

¶16

Chenoy as holder in terms of the order No.179 dated 12-09-1836 and 700 dated 03-07-1855 of the Governor General or pass such other order or orders as deem it fit and proper.

¶17

2. The background facts of the case, leading to filing of this writ petition by the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad are that one Najeebuddin Ghalib, the GPA holder of the heirs of Nawab Ghalib Jung Laiqud-Dowla Bahadur and the Great Grand Son of Late Ghalib Jung, filed an application before the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration (respondent No.1 herein) for release of the property known as Laiqud Dowla (Dreamland Theatre) bearing Cantonment No.221/B situated at Club Road, Secunderabad. The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, passed an order in CCLA’s Ref. No.NA2/183/2000 dated 25-05-2000 releasing the property in favour of Najeebuddin Ghalib, the GPA holder of the heirs of Nawab Ghalib Jung Laiqud-Dowla Bahadur and the Great Grand Son of Late Ghalib Jung. Thereupon, one Khursheed Ali Khan and others filed an appeal before the Government against the orders dated 25-05-2000 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. The appeal filed by the Khursheed Ali Khan and others came to be allowed, remanding the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for fresh disposal.

¶18

The petitioner, in his letter dated 22-05-2001, stated that as per General Land Register (GLR), maintained in the office, Survey No.691 measuring Acs.1.97 is held an old grant, which is governed under the Governor General’s Order No.179 dated 12-09-1836 and the Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 23-03-1999 upheld the GGO 179 of 1836 as the surviving law in respect of Bunglow No.39, Sagar Cantonment.

¶19

On a way, the petitioner pleaded that the property, which is sought to be released, is a Central Government property. The Chief

¶20

Commissioner of Land Administration after considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, vide Proceedings No. NA2/542/2002 dated 22-03-2002, withdrawn the earlier release orders passed in Ref. No.NA2/183/2000, dated

¶21

25-05-2000. The relevant portion of the orders dated 22-03-2002 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration reads as hereunder:

¶22

“The other technical doubts raised by the petitioners on the sale certificate such as name of the Judge is not mentioned, stamp papers of 1924, 1935 and 1936 were used and boundaries mentioned create doubts, have no cogent and convincing force to be accepted to at this belated stage especially in view of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Budget of the Galib-ul-Mulk Estate, which is prepared every year by the court of Wards and known to the Wards of the Estate, is an authentic and valid record to be relied upon. It would be pertinent to mention here that the disputed property finds a place in the Budget Book of the Estate for the Faslies 1345 and 1346 corresponding to 1935 and 1936. But, from the perusal of Budget Books of Galib-ul-Mulk for the subsequent Faslies 1347 and 1348 corresponding to 1937 and 1938, it is revealed that th property in question does not find a place in the list of properties which derive income to the Estate. There is a clear mention in the budget note of 1346 F corresponding to 1936 about the decrease in income of the estate in comparison with the previous year. It is recorded therein that such decrease is mainly due to the reason that one house of the Estate, in which there was British Cinema, was going to be sold under the court decrees. There is also a mention in the Budget note of the Estate for the year 1348 F (1938) that the income of the Estate decreased when compared with the previous years mainly due to shortage of rentals as the houses at Secunderabad were auctioned in execution of decrees by the Secunderabad Court. Such

¶23

fluctuating income status recorded in the Budget Books of the Estate clearly establishes that the property in question known as British Cinema i.e., Dream Land Theatre situated at Club Road, Secunderabad was auctioned in execution of the decree of the District court, Secunderabad. This fact of public auction of the property was known not only to the court of Ward but also to the Wards as is evident from the Budget Books of the Estate for 1346 and 1348 Faslies corresponding to 1936 and 1938. If the auction of the property was against the provision of the court of Wards Act, 1950 and other Acts referred to by the counsel for the petitioners, the Wards should have challenged the public auction in a Competent Court of Law. They did not choose to do so, and their complete silence in the matter creates an impression that they accepted the sale of property made on 04-01-1937, as a result, the income of the said property decreased and such diminishing income position was exhibited in the Budget Books of the Estate for 1347 and 1348 Faslies, indicating the reasons thereof. I have therefore no hesitation to express that the doubts raised by the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the sale certificate dated 04-01-1937 at this belated stage, in spite of the complete knowledge of it to the Wards and Court of Wards is a motivated after thought, which cannot be relied upon and it is fit to be over ruled. It is also a fact that the Cantonment Board has transferred the property in question in the name of Hoshang S. Chenoy, the predecessor in title of the respondents based on the sale certificate in E.P. No.27/1935 which is evident from the Extract of General land Register of 1956. The mutation of entries effected by the Cantonment Board leaves an overwhelming impression that the Cantonment Board has to accepted the Sale Certificate. The perusal of documents filed by the respondent mentioned at Sl.Nos. XIX TO XXIII AND XXVI TO XXIX, pertaining to the correspondence of Court of Wards and Government, clearly indicates that the properties of Galib-ul-Mulk, which were under the superintendence of court of Wards, were

¶24

released vide Notification No.2290, dated 01-051950. The relevant records and files were also handed over to the Ward. As such, no property remained under the control of the court of Wards. The averment made by the Counsel for the petitioners under para 10(1) is not correct. The C.C.L.A. released the property in question on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioners and the affidavit given by them. The petitioners, while suppressing the subsequent development, produced such documents as are favourable to them. It appears that they have mislead the authorities by misrepresenting the fact, with an ulterior motto to obtain the impugned orders dated 25-05-2000. The court of Wards and the Government have already taken a stand in the instant case that the properties of Galib-ul-Mulk which were under the superintendence of Court of Wards were earlier released vide Notification No.2290, dated 01-05-1950 and relevant records/files etc., were also handed over to Ward. The moment on which the properties are released, the order relating to placing the properties under the custody of the Court of Wards gets automatically revoked. As such, the Court of Wards has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition in this regard from any corner.

¶25

It is clear from the above circumstantial and forceful documentary evidence that the property in question was sold in the public auction in execution of the decree as is recorded in the Budget notes of the Estate for 1346 and 1348 Faslies corresponding to 1936 and 1938. The petitioners have misrepresented the facts in obtaining the release order of the property in question vide Ref.No. NA1/183/2000, dated 25-05-2000. After issue of the Notification No.2290, dt.01-05-1950 followed by release of the properties of Galib-ul-Mulk in favour of the Ward, the order placing the property under the custody of Court of Ward gets revoked. Therefore, it can be construed that the property in question was not under the custody of Court of Wards. The question of re-releasing any property which is not in its custody by the Court of Wards does not arise.

¶26

The impugned orders issued in NA2/183/2000, dated 25-05-2000 releasing the property in question due to misrepresentation of facts is hereby withdrawn.”

¶27

3. The petitioner filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 22-03-2002 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.

¶28

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri E. Manoher, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Sri A. Shireesh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.

¶29

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has filed the writ petition questioning the entire proceedings dated 22-3-2002, the petitioner is confining the writ petition to setting aside the observations made by Chief Commissioner of Land Administration with regard to entries in the GLR maintained by the Cantonment Court. In support of his contention that writ is maintainable on the aspect of questioning the observations made in the proceedings, reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of the Supreme Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. REGISTRAR

¶30

OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI AND OTHERS^[1] and M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. JAHAN KHAN^[2] .

¶31

6. There is no quarrel with regard to the propositions laid down in the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court. Though the statutory remedy to appeal is available, writ jurisdiction can be invoked on the following three contingencies:

¶32

i) When the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;

¶33

ii) When there is violation of principles of natural

¶34

justice;

¶35

iii) When the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

¶36

7. None of the above contingencies are advanced before me. Therefore, the above two decisions of the Supreme Court are in no way help the petitioner.

¶37

8. Sri E. Manoher, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is an appealable order and the petitioner, if he is aggrieved, has to challenge them by way of an appeal. A further submission has been made that whatever observations made by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration are based on the records produced before him and if the petitioner intends to question any of the observations, it can be only by way of an appeal and not by way of invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

9. Indisputably, the writ petitioner made entries in the General Land Register based on the sale certificate issued by the Court. Whatever rights the original landowner had, the same have been transferred in the name of Sri Hoshang S. Chenoy by virtue of the sale certificate issued by the competent Court. The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, after thorough enquiry, came to the conclusion that the sale certificate issued by the competent Court has been acted upon.

¶39

10. Such is the situation, I did not find any illegality, irregularity made by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration in making observations with regard to the entries made in the General Land Register. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order impugned in the writ petition, has to work out his remedies by way of an appeal as provided under the Act.

¶40

11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

_________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J October 09, 2009. KTL

¶42

[1] (1998) 8 SCC 1

¶43

[2] (2007) 10 SCC 88

The Defence Estate Officer v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Defence Estate Officer v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Agam Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. v.Lalitha, Vs Smt. v.Lakshmi

M/s. Nischint Constructions, rep by its Proprietorix Smt. Vs Dr. Pasumarthi S.N.Murthy

A.RajshekarRao, Vs The State of A.P.

Kilari Shivakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Edara Laxmana Das, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh