GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MALIK SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal Nos. 1159 to 1166 of 2009 are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh (the 'State'); Writ Appeal Nos. 1306 to 1313 of 2009 are by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and W.P. No. 29063 of 2009 is by five individuals. The eight appeals each filed by the State and the HMDA are against the common judgment dated 02-06-2009 in W.P. Nos. 3421 of 2008, 12928 of 2008, 3750 of 2009, 22619 of 2007, 7747 of 2008, 10084 of 2006, 8761 of 2008 and 6425 of 2009; and the writ petition is by five individuals challenging memo No. 1640/J.A1/03-09, Revenue Department, dated 21-05-2005 (the 'impugned memo'), passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) of the State. It is this memo which was set aside by the learned single Judge, against which the sixteen (16) appeals are preferred. Several individuals filed eight writ petitions challenging the validity of the memo dated 21-05-2005 and in two of the writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 22619 of 2007 and 7747 of 2008), the order of the State in G.O. Ms. No. 1084, dated 06-06-2005 (issued in exercise of the powers under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908) was additionally challenged. Details of the reliefs sought in the several writ petitions are set out hereunder.

(2.) By the common judgment, dated 02-06-2009, the learned single Judge invalidated the memo dated 02-05-2005 for violation of principles of natural justice and directed the State to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to the writ petitioners enabling them petitioners to urge all the grounds before the State. The order in G.O. Ms. No. 1084, dated 06-06-2005 was upheld but with the observation that as and when rights of the petitioners in respect of the property in question are determined in their favour they may pursue remedies in this behalf. It was clarified that the judgment shall not be treated as a pronouncement or adjudication of any dispute or question involved in the matter and the legal representatives of Late Nawab Nusrat Jung Bahadur-I or their authorized agent are at liberty to pursue the matter with the Government; and that that disputes, if any, among them (the legal representatives) could be agitated before a competent forum.

(3.) We have heard the learned Attorney-General for India instructed by Sri M. Surender Rao, the learned standing counsel for the appellant - HMDA; the learned Advocate-General for the appellant - State; Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 29063 of 2009; Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy appearing for Sri I.V.S. Rao; Sri Sunil Ganu for Sri V. Ramachander Goud, for impleading petitioners in the several appeals (who claim to be purchasers from the legal heirs of late Nusrat Jung - I through the GPA Sri J.H. Krishna Murthy and the legal heirs of Sri J.H. Krishna Murthy); Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, Sri R.K.J, Bhatia, Sri S.M. Shujaat Hussain, Mohd. Vasi Ahmad, learned counsel for the non-official respondents; and Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the GHMC.