MALLIKARJUNA RAO DIED Vs. MOHD FAKRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The daim in these two cases relates to evacuee property allotted to one Nenumal, a displaced person on 26-2-1969 under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (referred to hereinafter as "1950 Act"). Eventhough long years have elapsed yet the dispute between the parties has been kept alive by series of litigations spreading over the period and contested at all the levels including in this Court and the Supreme Court, as also before the executive authorities.

(2.) The facts of the case appear In the judgment under the appeals as also in the previous judgments. We are referring to the facts in brief only to elucidate the discussions to be made hereafter.

(3.) The property originally belonged to one Ghulam Mohd.Qureshi who died in 1943 leaving behind two sons viz. Ghulam Mohamood Qureshi and Naziruddin and his widow Jahangirunnisa Begum. For convenience sake we shall refer to the son Qureshi as the Junior Qureshi. After his migration to Pakistan two notices were issued on 16-7-1955 and 3-2-1955 declaring his property as evacuee property under the 1950 Act and on 27-2-1969 the property was allotted to the petitioner in W.P. No. 568/1980. Dr. Mallikarjuna Rao, the appellant is the Power of Attorney holder for the heirs of the displaced person Nenumal. One Mohd. Fakruddin, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 1895/1980 out of which W.A. No. 1505/86 arises, challenged the declaration and allotment before this Court in W.P. No. 34/1970. That case having been allowed by a learned Single Judge, the judgment was assayed on behalf of the allottee in W.A. No. 403/1972 which was decided on 17-4-1973 holding that what had vested under the 1950 Act was 7/16th share of all the properties left by the father Qureshi including the Ac. 51-16 guntas allotted to him. The Court held that the undivided 7/16th share vested in the custodian could be allotted validly to a displaced person. Any person found in possession of such property which has vested in the custodian was bound on demand to surrender possession to the custodian or to any person authorised by him. After the decision of the Court a communication was made on 30-6-1977 by the Managing Officer of the Ministry of Works, Housing, Supply and Rehabilitation (Settlement Wing), New Delhi, to the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, even while referring to the judgment of the Court, that the property under dispute was to be dealt with under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the rules framed thereunder, that the views expressed in letter Rc. D4/654/77 dated 31-3-1977 that the share of the custodian is 7/16 and the remaining 9/16 belongs to Mohd. Fakruddin and that the property is a composite property, are not correct as Mohd. Fakruddin had lost his case with regard to his claim in the property in question. He therefore, requested the Collector to put the allottee Nenumal in possession of the entire land measuring Ac. 51-16 guntas. Since no steps were taken, the Power of Attorney holder filed W.P. No. 568/80 seeking implementation of the order of the Managing Officer, dated 30-6-1977. The other Writ Petition W.P.No. 1895/80 was filed by Mohd. Fakruddin seeking relief to declare the letter dated 7-4-1980 of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk, requesting the allottee to select the survey numbers to an extent of Ac. 22-37 (both dry and wet) out of Ac. 52-14 guntas of land as representing 7/16th share of the alleged property as void and without jurisdiction. The further relief claimed was to direct respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Collector and theTahsildar to refer the claim of the allottee to the extent of 7/16th share to the competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (Act 64/51) (for short "1951 Act") and to separate his share in the composite property. Both the cases were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common Judgment allowing both the Writ Petitions and directing the competent authority under Act 64/51 to make enquiry about the interest of the evacuee as directed by the Court in W.A. No. 403/72. The direction in W.P. No. 568/80 was that on such determination, the authorities under the 1950 Act and also under the 1951 Act shall put the allottee in possession of the property declaring the property as evacuee property. In the present appeals the judgment has been assailed by both the parties, it being the claim of the allottee that the entire Ac. 51- 16 guntas must be allotted to him as was decided by the Managing Officer, in his letter dated 30-6-1977, and the other being the move in W.A. No. 958/87 to assail again the very allotment made as also the declaration of the lands as the evacuee property and also the direction to implement the judgment in W.A. No.403 of 1972 dated 17-4-1972