SHAIK OSMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus prohioiting the respondents from(evicting the petitioner by use of force and from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the premises No 5-4-422/1 situated at the cross roads, Namapally, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner is in possession of the premises bearing Municipal door No. 5-4- 422/1 situated at the cross-roads, Nanpally, Hyderabad, for the last several years, as the tenant of the Khader Sheriff. While so, an officer of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, visited tne permises in the first week of March, 1977. and demanded the petitioner to vacate the premises. He, therefore, filed O. S. No. 735 of 1977 in the Court of the VIII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 18th July, 1977 against the Union of India represented by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, for perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, he filed petition I. A. No. 547 of 1977 for the grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learnad Assistant Judge granted interim injunction. Ultimately the defendant in the suit did not attend the Courc even though he received the summons. The Court, therefore, passed an ex parte decree granting perpetual injunction against the Custodian of Evacuee property 01 28th November, 19/8. The Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, evicted the petitioner from the premises in question. Now the respondents are trying to evict him by force. Tne 2nd respondent who is the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, passed an order on 13th February, 1979 directing the 3rd respondent who is the Collector, to evict the petitioner from the premises. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition contending that the respondents are not acting in accordance with law in evicting him from the premises.

(3.) The respondents opposing this writ petition, contend that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner is an evacuee property administered under the Evacuee Property Act, 1970 by the Custodian and it is the absolute property of the Government. The petitioner is in the occupition of the premises without the orders of the Government or permission from the Custodian and therefore he is a trespasser The respondents also contend that the claim of the petitioner that he is the enant of Khadsr Sheriff does not confer on him any statutory rights nor can Khader Sheriff claim any right of interest in respect of the premises which is an evacuee property In fact Khader Sheriff filed a suit O. S No. 3 of 1965 in the Additional Judge's Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and injunction against the respondents. But that the Court dismissed the suit rejecting the claims of Khader Sheriff. Khader Sheriff himself has no rights whatsoever in the premises in question and since the suit was dismissed, the petitioner also has no rights whatsoever and he is, therefore, treated as no better than a trespasser. The contention of the petitioner that he obtained decree for injunction against the Custodian of Evacuee Property is unsustainable, since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the custodian properties under section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XXXI of 1980). As the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises which is an evacuee property, the respondents are entitled to evict him.