MOHD AFZAL KHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition was initially filed seeking direction to 1 st respondent not to dispose of the case in file No. B2/8986/91 on the file of the 2nd respond ent and to make over the matter to 2nd respondent for passing appropriate orders. However, in view of the intervening circumstances, an amendment to prayer was sought and the same was allowed. I shall discuss them in detail after referring to the events in the Writ Petition.

(2.) An extent of Ac. 3-09 guntas was purchased by the father of Writ Petitioners and one Sri Mohammed Afzal Khan in S.No. 74 and 75 (part), Baghlingampally, Nallakunta, Hyderabad under registered sale deed dated 13th Meher 1333 Fasli vide document No. 1629. The land was orally gifted to the mother of Writ Petitioners and a registered gift deed was also executed on 21st Sherewar 1351 Fasli. In 1966 when Nasrulla Khan and Vidyasagar Reddy were attempting to encroach, the mother of the petitioner (Smt. Samdani Begum) filed suit for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 30-10-1972. The land was sold to several parties viz. PadmaCooperative Housing Society, Balaji Bhagyanagar Cooperative Housing Society, some lands were acquired by Government and finally there remained 2400 sq. yards vacant land. Litigation was pending before the petitioners and Respondent No.3. Ons Sri Sekhar Reddy appears to have obtained permission for construction of building in August, 1991 from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In fact the petitioners have already obtained the permission in respect of the said land in 1986 itself. On representation, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad cancelled the permission. Thereupon Sri Sekhar Reddy filed a suit O.S. No. 4251/91 for injunction. Initially the Court granted injunction and later it was vacated and suit was also dismissed. In the pleadings in the said suit it was brought out that the respondent NO.3 and her two sons (R-4 and R-5) applied on 8-7-82 for occupancy rights under A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in respect of land of Ac. 1-00 situated in S.No. 12 (part) Baghlingampally. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad rejected the application on 24-1-1990 on the ground that their names were not found in the revenue records as on 20-7-1955. However, on 28-6-1990 they obtained order from District Revenue Officer directing incorporation of entry of their names from 1955 to 1958. Thereafter they made application for grant of occupancy rights and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad by order dated 4-8-1990 allowed the said application. Since all the aforesaid proceedings were initiated and orders were obtained without making the Writ Petitioners as party, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the order dated 4-8-1990 and filed appeal to the Joint Collector (R-2). The appeal was admitted in file No. B2/8986/91 after condoning the delay. The matter was posted to 23-12-1991 for the counter of R-3 to R-5. By the said date the Joint. Collector was transferred and the 1 st respondent was in full additional charge. The matter came up before the 1 st respondent on 23-12-91 in the capacity of full additional charge of post of Joint Collector. On the said date the counter on behalf of R-3 to R-5 was filed and the counsel for Appellant (Writ Petitioners) sought for time for enquiry and arguments. The counsel for other side was agreeable for a short adjournment. However, R-1 refused to grant any adjournment and insisted the counsel for Respondents to argue the case. Under these circumstances the counsel for appellant filed petition on 23-12-1991 and refused to argue before the 1st respondent. On the same day the 1st respondent after hearing the counsel for respondents reserved the case for orders. Apprehending adverse orders from the 1st respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed seeking directions not to deal or pass orders in appeal in file No. B2/8986/91. The Writ Petition came for admission on 27-12-1991. While issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim directions not to pass any orders in file No. B2/8986/91. The said order was communicated to R-1 telegraphically on 27-12-91 itself But to the surprise of the petitioners an order dated 26-12-1991 wasserved on the petitioners on 28-12-91, at 4 p.m. through special messenger dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. In view of the changed circumstances, the petitioners filed an amendment petition challenging the order dated: 26-12-1991 and sought for suspension. This Court by order dated 23-01-1992 granted interim suspension.

(3.) While the matter was being heard finally, the petitioner filed another W. P. M. P. No. 25633/95 seeking permission to advance additional grounds. Another W.P.M.P. No. 29894/95 was also filed seeking to challenge the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, dated: 04-08-1990 inproceedings No.B/5949/90(D.Dis).