Dismissed

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig v. The District Collector

Telangana HC7 Feb 2013WP/24760/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality of a land acquisition without notice, ruled that the petitioner acquired no title since land was declared surplus and transferred to society before his succession, and held his litigation was vexatious.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was saddled with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24760 of 2012

¶3

Dated 07.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. M.Anitha for Sri Mohd.Moin Ahmed Quadri

¶11

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare action of the respondents in acquiring the land admeasuring Acs.1.38 guntas in survey No.299, Acs.1.27 guntas in survey No.300 and Acs.2.14 guntas in survey No.301 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, without notice to the petitioner and without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

The petitioner averred that he has succeeded to the abovementioned property, which originally belonged to his great grandfather, by name, Momin Ali and that Momin Ali had one daughter, by name, Gafoorunnisa Begum @ Fatima Begum. That after the death of Momin Ali, her daughter succeeded to the said property. That Gafoorunnisa Begum had one daughter, by name, Syeda Mehrunnisa Begum, who is the mother of the petitioner and that after the death of Gafoorunnisa Begum, the petitioner’s mother came into possession of the property and enjoyed the same and after her death, the petitioner has succeeded to the said property. The petitioner further averred that in the month of January, 2012, when he had applied for Pahanies in respect of the land held by his great grandfather, he came to know that the same was acquired by the Government for public purpose and that the said acquisition has taken place without following any procedure.

¶16

A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that the abovementioned property was not acquired for the reason that the said land was a ceiling surplus land connected to file No.E2/67/82. It is further stated that Imtiaz Ahmed – General Power of Attorney (GPA) to Momin Ali had handed over an extent of

¶17

24,568 sq. meters on 06.05.1983. That the Special Officer and Competent Authority has passed an order under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘Ceiling Act’) and handed over the land admeasuring 24,568 sq. meters in survey Nos.299, 300 and 301 of Shaikpet Village to the Government. The said land in turn was transferred to Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Schools Society (for short ‘the society’) in G.O.Ms.No.390, dated 15.04.1986 and notification to that effect was issued in A.P. Gazette dated 21.10.1987.

¶18

In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has asserted his ownership and questioned the authority of GPA holder of Momin Ali and submitted that Momin Ali died on 10.04.1952 and hence, the question of his GPA holder handing over possession of the land on 06.05.1983 does not arise. The petitioner has not controverted the plea raised in the counter-affidavit that an order under Section 10(6) of the Ceiling Act was passed declaring the land admeasuring 24,586 sq.meters as surplus land. He has also not denied issuance of G.O.Ms.No.390 dated 15.04.1968, whereunder the land in question was notified in favour of the society.

¶19

At no point of time, the members of the petitioner’s family, who were holding the property have questioned taking over possession of the property. The petitioner who allegedly succeeded to his mother has for the first time approached this Court by way of this writ petition in the year 2012. As rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the claim of the petitioner is wholly speculative and the petitioner has indulged in chance litigation without any bona fides. When the predecessors in title of the petitioner have not questioned either the order passed under the Ceiling Act declaring the land in question as surplus land or G.O.Ms.No.390 dated 15.04.1986, whereunder the property was transferred to the society and allowed the said proceedings to attain finality, the petitioner

¶20

cannot seek to unsettle the settled issues at this length of time. As the property was declared as surplus even before the petitioner allegedly succeeded to the same, no title over the same can be said to have passed to him and therefore, the question of his succeeding to the said property does not arise.

¶21

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. For indulging in vexatious litigation, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

¶22

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31580 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶23

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶24

07^th February, 2013 GHN

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig v. The District Collector

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

M/s.Agroha Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Boyapati Lakshmi Krishna Prasada Rao, S/o. Veera Basavaiah Vs State Bank of India rep. by its Chairman, Mumbai.

Gummapu Chitti Venkata Swamy Vs District Registrar

Mohd. Khaleel-ur-Rahman Vs The Public Information Officer

Veginaty Osura Reddy, S/o. Guruva Reddy Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and

Abdul Adal Vs The Regional Passport Officer