Disposed

Khaja Akbar Mohiuddin Ansari S/o late Khaja Mohiuddin Ansari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Apr 2014PIL/457/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Chief Secretary to enquire into the Government's failure to appoint a Special Court Chairman. The Court exercised its power to nominate a retired Judge as Chairman under Section 7 of the AP Land Grabbing Act, directed the Government to accept the nomination within four weeks, and ordered expedited closure of the vacancy.

What did the court decide?

Directed Government to appoint the nominated retired Judge as Chairman within four weeks; directed Chief Secretary to submit report enquiry.

Khaja Akbar Mohiuddin Ansari S/o late Khaja Mohiuddin… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

PIL .No. 457 of 2013

¶7

Between:Khaja Akbar Mohiuddin Ansari S/o late Khaja Mohiuddin Ansari

¶8

..... Petitioner AND

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to appoint Chairman to the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982.

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and the order of the High Court dated 23-12-2013 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.V. Suresh, Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned G.P. for Revenue (Assignment) for the Respondent, the Court made the following

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Learned Registrar General of this Court has submitted a report in a sealed cover and the same is opened in the Court. From the report, it appears as follows:

¶15

A letter was received from the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter No.43262/A&R/2013-1 dated 23.11.2013 stating that the post of Chairman is vacant since 19.04.2013 and requested to send a panel for filling up the said post. The said letter was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice by the Registry. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the Registrar General has addressed a letter dated 10.12.2013 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, asking choice of personnel, whether from sitting or retired Judges of this Court. But no response has been received from so far. Then, it is reported that after waiting for a considerable time for the response, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to nominate a retired Judge of this Court for appointment as Chairman for the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter

¶16

referred to as ‘the Act’) and the same was informed to the Government vide Roc.No.789/2013/ J.Spl(Admn) dated 20.01.2014.

¶17

It is unfortunate that, in spite of the communication sent by the Registry, the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, did not respond. Why this apathy has been shown and no importance has been attached to the communication sent by the Registry is not understood nor appreciated. It is expected that the Government will give respect to the communication and respond immediately to the communication of the Registrar General, as it is a public cause. Justice delivery should not be allowed to be paralyzed by reason of non-functioning. The Government should have responded immediately.

¶18

We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary to Government to make an enquiry as to why this lapse on the part of the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department has occurred, and submit a report to this Court.

¶19

Now, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, after waiting for some time, has recommended the name of a retired Judge of this Court for the aforesaid post. Therefore, we have to examine whether this recommendation has been made in terms of the provisions of the Act or not. Section 7 of the Act i.e., Constitution of Special Courts reads as follows:

¶20

“(1) The Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing, and trial of cases in respect of the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, by notification, constitute (a Special Court).

¶21

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a Chairman and (four other members) to be appointed by the Government.

¶22

(3) The Chairman shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court and of the other four members, two shall be persons who are or have been District Judges (hereinafter referred to as Judicial Members) and the other two members shall be persons who hold or have held a post not below the rank of a District Collector (hereinafter referred to as Revenue Members):

¶23

Provided that the appointment of a person who was a Judge of a High Court as the Chairman of the Special Court shall be made after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned: Provided further that where a sitting Judge of a High Court is to be appointed as Chairman, such appointment shall be made after nomination by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India.”

¶24

Therefore, it is clear that the Chairman can be appointed from amongst others, both a sitting and a retired Judge of a High Court. Accordingly, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice asked the Registry to have the option of the Government, but in spite of that, no response has been received. Therefore, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has no option

¶25

but to take a decision in this regard having seen the exigency of the matter and hence decided to nominate a retired Judge of the High Court, as the appointment of a sitting Judge of the High Court shall be made with the concurrence of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, perhaps the matter would have been delayed. The law says that the appointment of such Chairman from retired High Court Judge shall be made in consultation with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice himself, as word consultation as has been construed to be a concurrence by 9- Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (See 1993 (4) SCC 441).

¶26

Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Government to take a decision in the matter of the said appointment as nominated by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶27

The matter will appear in the list five weeks hence for submission of compliance report and also for submission of a report by the Chief Secretary.

¶28

The report of the Registrar General shall be returned.

¶29

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

¶33