AZIZUNISSA BEGUM Vs. BASHEERUDDIN BABU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dismissal of LGC (SR) No. 4200 of 2006 at the stage of admission by the order dated 28-2-2007 of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, led the applicants therein to file the present writ petition.

(2.) LGC (SR)NO. 4200 of 2006 was filed by the two petitioners herein against the other respondents herein before the Special Court, the 25th respondent herein. The petitioners contended that the application schedule site of about 74,000 square yards in Sy. No. 194/11, of Begumpet is part of the Estate of Lady Viquar and the estate was undivided among her heirs, who are hence, joint owners and possessors. The petitioners, as the widow and son of Nawab Rasheed Nawaz Jung, are entitled to a sherai share in the schedule site along with the other siblings of Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung and their descendents. The entire estate was entrusted to the custody of the Court of Wards by G. O. Ms. No. 841 (Revenue), dated 17-2-1959 and by a letter No. Y1/750/59, dated 3-1-1961, the Government directed the Court of Wards to release the estate to the legal heirs and successors of Lady Viquar, but there was no evidence of the letter being given effect to. As per G. O. Ms. No. 225 (Revenue) dated 12-2-1964, the entire estate continued to vest in the custody of the Court of Wards, which was confirmed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by a letter dated 27-1-2003 stating that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is officiating as court of Wards. There was never any release of the estate as per the Court of wards Act. As the estate including the application schedule site was Inam land, the heirs and successors of Lady Viquar filed an application before the Inams tribunal, Chevella for occupancy certificates and a comprehensive order no. L/3842/82, dated 25-10-1997 was passed by the Inams Tribunal that the entire estate including the Begumpet palace stood vested in the State. The said orders are non-est as the entire estate comprises non-agricultural land as contemplated by Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in the light of the judgments in w. P. No. 199 of 1998, dated 8-6-2001 and W. A. No. 975 of 2002, dated 1-10-2002. The second respondent, who is the son-in-law of one of the legal heirs of Lady viquar and his elder brother, the first respondent, a prominent Muslim politician, promised to ensure the release of the application schedule site from the clutches of the Government by using their political connections and believing the same, the helpless heirs of Lady Viquar including the petitioners appointed respondents 1 and 2 as their General Power of Attorney holders under separate documents. Nawab Rasheed Nawaz Jung also executed a registered General power of Attorney dated 21-3-1990 similarly. The first and second respondents in collusion with the other respondents and in violation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Income Tax Act 1963, the Court of Wards act etc. , and in suppression of facts, inducted the respondents 3 to 22 and their predecessors-in-title into the application schedule site by execution of various documents in their favour. As per Section 55 (1) (a) of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, the respondents 3 to 22 and their predecessors-in-title cannot claim ignorance of the statutory embargos or claim to be bona fide purchasers without notice of such provisions or proceedings. Respondents 3 to 22 and their predecessors-in-title are thus, conspirators and abettors of respondents 1 and 2 in grabbing the application schedule site dishonestly. Obtaining municipal numbers in respect of portions of the site and making constructions are of no avail and the act of land grabbing is within the jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 8 (2) of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, including questions of title, ownership and possession. The petitioners cannot file any civil suit or any other proceedings in respect of the land grabbing and have no alternative relief except to approach the special Court. Any sale deeds or other documents of conveyance are non-est and the criminal breach of trust by respondents 1 and 2 was by taking advantage of the position of the first respondent as a Minister in the State and silencing the officials, misusing the position. Nawab Rasheed Nawaz Jung issued a legal notice to respondents 1 and 2 on 8. 5. 2006 to account for all the transactions effected by them in respect of the application schedule site, for which they gave a reply dated 18-5-2006 stating the said site to be vacant land with which they did not deal in any manner. Another notice was given on 7-8-2006 to the respondents 1 and 2 to explain the existence of the buildings of the other respondents in the site for which there was no reply. Respondents 23 and 24 representing the State committed dereliction of statutory duties and the concerned officials of respondents-3, 11, 14 to 16 and 18 to 22 could not be identified. Either the Court of Wards or the heirs of Lady Viquar are entitled to lawful possession of the schedule site and as co-owners, the petitioners are entitled to file the land grabbing case which is within limitation, more so, by virtue of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963. Hence, the petitioners sought for declaring the respondents 1 to 22 as land grabbers, directing them to deliver vacant possession of the schedule site to the petitioners or the Court of Wards, directing the respondents 1 to 22 to pay adequate compensation similarly and to prosecute them for the offence of land grabbing.

(3.) THE Special Court in the impugned order observed that the petitioners executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of respondents 1 and 2 including the right to alienate to get over their lack of title and other legal hurdles. As the heirs could not come to an amicable settlement when the estate was released, it was put back under the custody of the Court of Wards. The special Court observed that the petitioners have to proceed against the respondents 1 and 2 for any alleged misdeeds in an appropriate forum, if so advised, and it is for the petitioners to find out how respondents 3 to 22 acquired title to and possession of the schedule land, if the G. P. A. holders did not alienate the same as stated in their reply notice. When the petitioners did not object for the construction of huge buildings by respondents 3 to 22 in the site, they also might have been parties to the conspiracy and collusion they are alleging. If the petitioners and the respondents 1 and 2 acted in unison in alienating the schedule land to respondents 3 to 22, they did not come to the court with clean hands in trying to unsettle the alienations. The Special Court specifically observed that as admittedly the respondents 3 to 22 were put in possession under documents executed on behalf of the applicants by their G. P. A. holders, respondents 1 and 2, the possession of the respondents cannot be termed as possession without lawful entitlement, and hence, the essential ingredients of Section 2 (d) and (e) of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, are unavailable. While noting the unusuality of giving lengthy written submissions on merits at the stage of admission, the Special Court has, therefore, dismissed the petition at the stage of admission.