Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Deepathi Avenues Pvt.Ltd., on 24 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.10 of 2011
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appears for the appellants.
Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Amir Bavani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against order dated 14.12.2010 by which the learned Single Judge while allowing Writ Petition No.22822 of 2010 preferred by respondent No.1, quashed the notice dated 13.09.2010 issued under Section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Act') and reserved 2 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 liberty to the Collector to commence the proceeding from the stage of Section 7 of the 1974 Act and to pass appropriate orders either under Section 8 or Section 9 of the 1974 Act. The learned Single Judge has further directed the parties to maintain status quo till the proceeding is concluded. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
3. Respondent No.1 vide registered sale deeds dated 19.06.2006, 20.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 purchased property measuring 3000 sq.yards bearing Municipal Nos.8-2-272/54/A, 8-2-272/57/1, 8-2-272/57/2 and 8-2-272/57/3 in Survey No.504 (old Survey No.129) situate at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property') from Smt. Ameena Begum, Mohd. Abdul Aziz, Mohd. Abdul Rasheed and Mohd. Abdul Quddus, who are the legal representatives of late M.A.Razzak. It is the case of the respondents that the schedule property is part and parcel of land measuring Acs.3.02 guntas of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality which was granted by H.E.H. the 3 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 Nizam through Mr. Khaja Mohiuddin Ansari. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh after due enquiry vide memo bearing No.3933/Q2/64-17 dated 06.12.1967 recognised the ownership of 42 plots including plot No.8D measuring Acs.3.02 guntas pertaining to Khaja Moin Nawaj Jung @ Khaja Moinuddin Ansari. On the death of aforesaid Khaja Mohiuddin Ansari in the year 1965, his son, namely, Ahmed Mohiuddin, sold land measuring 7879 sq.yards out of Acs.3.02 guntas in plot No.8D to Chintapalli Achaiah vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1966. According to the respondents, aforesaid Chintapalli Achaiah divided aforesaid plot No.8D into two plots, namely, Plot No.1 and Plot No.2 leaving a common passage in between two plots.
4. It is averred that aforesaid Achaiah sold plot No.1 to Sri Kommareddy Bapaiah and his wife, Kommareddy Venkata Sesha Ratna, vide registered sale deed dated 18.07.1968. By another sale deed executed on the same date i.e., 18.07.1968, aforesaid Achaiah sold plot No.2 measuring 3685 sq.yards to aforesaid Abdul Razaak, who enclosed his extent of land with 4 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 a common compound wall and constructed houses with municipal Nos.8-2-272/54/A, 8-2-272/57/1, 8-2-272/57/2 and 8-2-272/57/3.
5. The State Government vide memo dated 9.1.1985 derecognized plot Nos.8D, 78-A, 2, 129/49/D and 59 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality. The grandsons and son of late Bapaiah i.e., the owners of plot No.1, filed Writ Petition No.2270 of 1985 in which a challenge was made to the proceeding of derecognition. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 15.11.1988 and quashed the order of derecognition dated 09.01.1985 granting liberty to the respondent authorities to issue notice and to indicate the grounds on which the allotment was proposed to be cancelled.
6. Mr. Mohd. Abdul Razaak, who purchased plot No.2, filed O.S.No.260 of 1985 before VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Government and District Collector in which the order of derecognition dated 09.01.1985 was assailed. The aforesaid civil suit was decreed 5 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 on 04.02.1994. The Government preferred an appeal, namely, A.S.No.115 of 1985 and the said appeal was dismissed on 28.12.1999. The judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.115 of 1985 was affirmed by the learned Single Judge of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 in S.A.No.1035 of 2001. Thereafter, Review Petition filed by the State Government was also dismissed on 06.07.2005.
7. After dismissal of the Review Petition, respondent No.1 purchased the schedule property vide registered sale deeds dated 19.06.2006, 20.06.2006 and 01.07.2006. However, according to the respondents, on 10.09.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar along with police officials visited the schedule property and removed the name board of respondent No.1 and installed a board with a description that plot No.8C is in the custody of the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, under the provisions of the 1974 Act. Thereupon, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.22822 of 2010.
6 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011
8. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 14.12.2010 held that the impugned notice issued under Section 11(1) of the 1974 Act suffers from procedural irregularity inasmuch as it is neither preceded by an enquiry as envisaged under Section 7 or a suit as envisaged by Section 8 as well as Section 9 of the 1974 Act. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants have prepared a panchanama on the paper without taking actual physical possession of the schedule property. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 11(1) of the 1974 Act was quashed. However, the appellants were granted liberty to take recourse to the provisions under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the 1974 Act. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.22822 of 2010 was allowed. Hence, this intra Court Appeal.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the provisions of the 1974 Act were invoked in relation to plot No.8C whereas the respondents claim title in respect of plot No.8D and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondents are not the persons aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 11 of the 1974 Act in 7 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 relation to plot No.8C. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondents had no locus to challenge the notice issued under Section 11(1) of the 1974 Act.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents have invited the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and contended that the notice issued under Section 11(1) of the 1974 Act is vitiated in law as the same was not preceded by an enquiry as contemplated under Section 7 of the 1974 Act. It is further submitted that the respondents are concerned with the lands in their possession which is covered by the sale deeds dated 19.06.2006, 20.06.2006 and 01.07.2006. It is further submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge be clarified to the extent mentioned above.
11. This Court by an order dated 18.07.2024 had taken note of the aforesaid contention and had asked the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants to seek instructions and 8 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 to submit response with regard to the stand of the appellants with regard to plot No.8D. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the learned Special Government Pleader has filed an affidavit and in para 5, it was stated as under:
"5. It is submitted that, the appellants herein submit and undertake that, they have no claim over Plot No.3-D, which is claimed by the Writ Petitioners, under various sale deeds. The claim of the respondents, is only in relation to the land covered under Plot No.8-C. Any action taken by the appellants, would be in relation to the property in Plot No.8-C, only."
12. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
13. The 1974 Act is an Act to provide for determination, custody and disposal of the property vested in the State by escheat or lapse or as Bona Vacantia for want of a rightful owner and of unclaimed property and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(i) and 2(iv) of the 1974 Act defines the expression 'bona vacantia' and 'escheat'. Chapter III of the 1974 Act deals with declaration of property as an escheat or a bona vacantia and its disposal. Section 7 of the 1974 Act 9 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 provides that whenever the local officer receives the information from any source that any property of the nature of an escheat or a bona vacantia is situated or lying within the jurisdiction, he shall cause an inquiry to be made in respect thereof. Section 8 of the 1974 Act provides that on account of inquiry made under Section 7, the local officer is satisfied that the property of the nature of an escheat or a bona vacantia in the possession of a person who has no authority to claim it and if such person resists to surrender such possession on demand the officer may after obtaining the sanction of the competent authority, institute a suit in a Court for declaration of title and for possession. Section 9 provides that local officer shall take the property into custody and arrange for its care and for maintenance of the property which is not in possession of any person or where the person in possession surrenders. Section 11 provides for procedure for declaring property to be escheat or bona vacantia. Section 11(1) of the Act mandates that as soon as the property is taken into custody under Section 9, the local Officer shall publish a notice in such manner as has been 10 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 prescribed calling upon the persons who may have any claim to such property to prefer their claims to such property in the prescribed form within three (3) months from the date of publication of the notice.
14. In the instant case, there has been no determination under the 1974 Act that whether or not the schedule property is bona vacantia or escheat. No inquiry under Section 7 of the 1974 Act has been held to ascertain the nature of the schedule property. The dispute between the parties pertains to identity of the schedule property as well. The appellants on the one hand contend that the provisions of the 1974 Act had been invoked in relation to plot No.8C whereas the respondents assert that the proceedings have been initiated in respect of plot No.8D. In view of the stand taken by the appellants in the affidavit filed before us that the appellants do not intend to initiate the proceedings in respect of plot No.8D and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the appellants not to take any action under the provisions of the Telangana Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974, and not to 11 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.10 of 2011 give effect to the notice under Section 11(1) of the 1974 Act in relation to the property covered under the sale deeds dated 19.06.2006, 20.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 executed in favour of respondent No.1. Needless to state that the appellants are at liberty to initiate the proceedings in relation to the property held by the respondents afresh, if so advised. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
15. In the result, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 24th JULY, 2024.
kvni