The High Court · 2025

Mr. Nikunj Dugar learned counscl lbr the respondent No. I JUDGMENT: Qter Hon'ble Justrce Moushwni Blaottache4ja)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order datcd 24.06.2025 passcd b1' a learncd Singlc Judge of this Court in W.P.No,1O368 ol 2024 filcd by Ll-re rcspondent No. 1/writ petitioner against the inaction of the appellant (the respondent No.8 in the Writ Pctition) in failing to considcr thc representation dated 27.O3.2024 n-rade by thc rrit petiLioner and sought for a direction on the respondents thcrein including the appellant (respondent No.8) to complete the proccedings pending under the repealed Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 195 I ('the I95 I Act'). The direction, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, addressing unresolved issues concerning the lands in four Survey Numbe rs i.e., Sy.No.122/ 1 admeasuring Acs.10.21 gts., Sy.No.396/2 adrneasuring Ac. 1. 16 gts., Sy-No.438 admeasuring Acs.17.22 gts. and Sy.No.396/4 admeasuring Acs.13.20 gts., which were not included in Registe red Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962.

2. The writ petitioner/the respondent No.1 tiled 2 LAs. (tA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024\ tor interim directions on the respondents (inciuding the appellant herein i.e., the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition) against mutations or alteration of Revenue Records of the lands conlained in \\ "/ a MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.72OO ol 2025 thc four slrrrev nLrmbcrs and to restrain thr respondents from crcirtinq an\ thirci p:rrtv ilrtcrest in those lands

3. [3y th,: rrnpugned order, the learned Singlt: Judge allou,ed tl-re Wrrt PelitLon b1, dirccting the appellirrr/thc respondent No.8 - Conrpc[ent Officcr to dispose of Applic rtion No. I of 2000 prelerrcd by tlle petitioncr or the predccessor in-interest or legal heirs of Saleha Frrtima Begum, within a period of thrcc months from thc datc of the impugned order and also imposerl costsr of Rs.50,O00/ to bc pavable trr thc appellant/the respondent No.S irsi they had failed to settle thc dispr.iLe and disposc of the Application llk,l b1' the petitioner, even altcr the l:rpsc of 25 ycars. 4 . Wc ha vc' oonsidcred thc submissions rnade Lrv learned counsel appearing fc r rhe appellant and the respondent Iio. 1/writ petitioner. Counscl has terken us through the relevant provisrons of the 1951 Act and thc subse quent repeal and reinstatement the r:of. We have also peruscd the lotificatrons and communications r., ith regard to [he repeal.

5. Thc appellant hcrcin, who rvas the responde:r-.t No.B in the Writ Petition, is t re Competent Officer appointed by th: StaLe Government under section.l of the 1951 Act uide G.O.M.S.No.I042, Revenue (L.A.) Department, dated 16.11.199 1. The respondent \,r.1/writ petitioner was rcpresented before the learned Single Juclge b,' his General Porver \ '/t-/'- I MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO oJ 2O25 of Attorney holder uide General Power of Attorney dated 10. lO.2019 . The Writ Petitioner claims to be the predecessor-in- in teres t of the lands in the lour suruey numbers q,hich were classificd as 'Evacuee Property' under the 1951 Act under the cusiodian o[ a Competenl Offrcer s,ho s,as appointed under the 1951 Act.

6. Thc respondent No. 1/u,rit petitioner claims [hat the property was owned by one Nooruddin Hasan and Saifuddin Khalid, sons of Munccr Ahmed. A claim u'as initiated by Saleha Fatima Begum, daughter of Muneer Ahmed along with her sister and mother. The properties bcing recognized as Composite Properties with respective shares of the evacuees and non-evacuees being determincd and established. The Competent Officer, entrusted with thc custody of the propertics, conducled their sale as authorised by section 10 ol thc 1951 Act and Saleha Fatima Begum made payment ol Rs.38,415/ -, conscquent to which the lands were acquired by Saleha Fatima Bcgum rhrough a Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.1,2.1962. Although Saleha Fatima Begum became undisputed owner of the properties. It was later discovered that the Competent Ofhcer omitted to include the lands in the four survey numbers were not included in the Registered Sale Certificate dated 17. \2.1962. Saieha Fatima Begum passed away on 27.06.1987. The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum submitted a representation to the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the Secretary to the Commissioner of Survey Settlements 4 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO oJ 2O25 and Land llecords, Hr.derabad on 05.11.1988 rlc rranding that the Iands rn thc four sun,ev numbcrs be allotted t, them in vieu of blatant omission ir-r the Rcgistercd Sale Ccrtiflcat clateci 17. 12.1962. The Custoclian and thc Sccret.tn issued ordcrs (l tcd 06.05.1989 in lavour of the legal hcirs of Salcha Fatima Begurn affirming Saleha Fatima Begum's o\vnership ovcr lands in the four s.i lwey numbers. 7 . The rt:spondcnt No. 1/r,rit petltioner statcs, that ccrtain third partics filecl W.P.Nos .9229 and 9338 of 1989 ch:rl t:nging the orders issued by thr: Custodian of Evacuee Property arrr thc Secretary to Commission,:r Survel Setllemcnts and Lan:t Records dated

06.05.1989. Vide Lhe common order dated O 1.11. 1()99. passed in the said two Writ Pctitions, the lcarned Single JL: lge quashed the Custodian's ordcr dated 06.05.1989 permitting rlr.r Urrit Petrtioners therein to scek appropriate rccourse before a dr:s irinaled Competcnt Officer under section 4 ol the 195 I Act. Ag9 -r :vecl by the s:rid common ordcr dalcd 01. I 1. 1999, legal heirs of Sa ,.:ha Fatima Begum represented bv the GPA-holder filed Writ Apo,:als rvhich were dismissed orr b1, gp6olding the common order (lated 01.11.1999. During the c,rurse of the Writ Appeals, a Division Ilcnch directed the legal heirs of Salcha Fatrma Bcgum to approach th( (lompetent Officer appointed by the State Government under section .l of the 1951 Act and by G.O.lVIs.No.1042, Revenue (LA) Department C,1ted 16.11.1991. .) 5 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.72OO ol 2O25

8. The lcgal hcirs of Saleha Fatima Bcgum, thereafter made an Application (Applcurtion No.1 of 2000) dated 28.03.2000 to the appellant/ thc respondcnl No.8 (the Compctent Officer) with a reque st for allotmcnt of lands in the four survey numbers. In the said Application, the legal heirs filed an LA. on 19.O7.2OO2 for a direction on the Revcnue Authorities no[ to mulate the names of the respondents therein in the Revenue Records and prohibiting the said respondents from altering the nature or physical leatures of the land. Thc Cornpctent Officer passcd an order ort 19.07 .2OO2 directing the partics to maintain status quo rvilh regard to the land until the main Application u'as resolved.

9. The above narrations of facts are based on the writ affidavit and are undisputcd. These admitted lacts have been narrated to provide the context to the grievance raised by the respondent No.1/writ petrtioner bcfore the learned Single Judge

10. The grievance of the re spondent No.1/writ petitioner in the Wrrt Petition was the inaction on the part of the appellant/the respondent No.8 (the Competcnt Officer) u.ith regard to hearing the respondent No.1/writ pctitioners' Application (Application No.1 of 20OO) filed on

28.O3.2OO0. The respondent No. I states that the Competent Ofhcer failed to take steps towards the final hearing of the matter sit-rce 07 .ll.2OO9 despite the father of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner \ 6 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO o! 2O25 re gularly taking follow-up action in the matter ur rr il his dcath i.e.. on t3.12.2017. I 1. As stzrtcrl abovc, nonc of thc lacts have l;,,, n disputcd bl, the appeliant/ th.c rcspondcnt No.8. The only challenq(r to thc rmpugnecl order is that thc appellant was divcstcd of his respr. rsibilitl, to proceed s,ith the respondent No. 1/u,rit petitioner's Appllc.r ion in view ol the 1951 AcL being repealcd in 2005 by The Displacerl )),:rsons Claims and Other Laws llcceal Acr, 200.5 ('rhe 2005 Acr').

12. Counsel lor the appellant,/thc respondenr No.g relies on a Notificarion clali:d 19.08.2O10 ro urgc that thc 200., Act clcsignated a Senior Civil ,Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Dethi as tfr( ,jompetcnt Ofllcer under section .1 of thc 1951 Acr. Counsel furthc: submits that The Repealing and ArTrending (Second) Act,2017 (,th( .,r)17 Acr,) repealed the enactme,nts specified in the First Schcrhrl,: including The Displaccd Pe lsons Claims arrd Othcr Larvs Re pea I ,i r:t, 2005, but did not revive or rcstore thc jurisdrction of the appellan t as the Competent Officer under scction 4 of thc l95l Act. CounseL :.oncludes that the impugned ordcr fails to notice that the appellar)t lid not have the power to process the respondent No.1/u,rit petit roner,s application after the 2005 Act camc into force.

13. The stzLnd taken by the appcllant is disptrLed by counsel appearing for tl're respondent No.l /writ petitioner rlounsel places a t-o ,1 7 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.72OO o! 2025 series o[ Notifications and Communications to urge that the responsibility of the appellant, as thc Competcnt Officer, continued and remained undisturbed notr,'"'ithstanding the 2005 Act and the 2077 Act. 14 . The arguments made on behalf of the appellant/ the respondent No.8 and the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner would be clarified from the list of documents annexed to the Writ Petition hled by the respondcnt No. i /writ petitioner. The documents are as follows: (i) 'lhe appellant/ respondent No.8 was appointed as the CompetcnL Olficer on 16. 1 l 199 1 under G.O.Ms.No. lO42 in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of sectron 4 of the 1951 Act. (ii) A Notihcation dated 19.08.201O, issued by the M inistry of Home Affairs Fre edom Fighter and Rehabilitation (FFR) Division. The notification records the necessity of delegation in view of the 2OO5 Act not containing specific savings Clause and thus the provisions of section 6 ofThe General Clauses Act, 1897 and also states, inter dlia, that it had become necessary to delegate powers to the officers of Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to exercise powers under various I I: Ii I l: I 8 MB,J&GPK,J w.A.No.72OO oJ 2025 provisions o[ thc repealed Acts to enab i, them to disprise of pcnding claims, notwithstalr(. rig such Appcal. Thc notification also spccilic s thar the Er,;rclrcc Proltcrtl' Ccll is dezrling ,,r ith thc propr:rtics situated in tlelhi r.r'hich is 1,..Jror-rsiblc for tl're management and disposal r>i Flvacuec property as pcr the notification of Arrr.L st ,2O 10 issued under The GencraI Clauscs Act. (iii) A conrmunicatron issued by the Ministr. ,,' Suppl_v &. Rchabilitatron (Department of Rehir I itation), Govcrnment of India, dated 24.O5. 19E(r 66 1ir" Sccrctarl. Lo thc Government ol Andhr r i,radesh, Revenuc Departmcnt, I1-vderabad statitig rhat the adnrin is tration, management and dispc,sr of the remaining undisposed of the acquire 1 )\,acuce lancls / propertics and realization of irI r,:ars of rental demands outstandtng against ind,r t,- uals in respect of cvacuee properties in tl-rc State of And hra Pradesh has been transferred th c r Lems of work to the Government of Andhra pra r I tsh for disposal of the residuary work in a s:r rr s factory manncr and for carrying out the purposcs of The Displaced Persons (Compensatio.r & \ Y 9 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO oI 2025 Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thcreunder. The Communication further states that the number ol cascs is pending irl relation to the Evacuee properties. The pou,ers cxercised b)r the Tribunals shall be delegated Lo the Officers of the Slate Government nominaled in this behalf and the liles pertaining to the litigation work will be handed ovcr b]' a representative of the Rchabilitation Dcpartntcnt at l{yclcr.rbad The notification further matldatcs the State Government to appoint a Competent Officer under section 4 of the 195 i Act lo deal with the composite propcrties in rcspect of which the proceedings havc already been started or may be started after the notilication. The properties mcntioned in thc said notificaLion shall be deemed to have beer-r completely transferred from the Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from o 1.06. i980. (iv) A communication issued from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of lndia (FFR Division) dated 22.O9.2008 to all the Chief Secretaries of the State and the Administrators of the Union _l 10 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO oJ 2O25 Terrr Lories clarifying that the Repea ., 005 Act u'oLrld not alfcct tl.rc disposal of a categt - of cases mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 3. 1 br rhc State Govcrnmcnt u'hich uould inclu<lc l i.sa(rsfied verificd claims filed under The Displac c:: persorrs (Clairns) Act, 1950 in u,hich right has irr ,.rr.O ,,. has bccn acquired and n,hich were perc rrq as or.l

06.09.2005 i.e., the datc on which rh,: !)54 Ac:L ancl lhe other related AcLs werc repea r.d. 'lhc c:onrrnu nication reiLerates that scttl(:nL'nt ol pending matters can be taken ul) lrv lhc aut]-rorities prescribed under any State t,rtws that ma_r' lrave bcen enacted, since the sub.1c r stands trar slcrred to the State Govcrnments. (u) 'lhc Notification issued by the Ministn- )l Hlrmr) Affairs, Government of India (FFR Divisio;,) to al1 the Chie f Secretaries of States/ Adminis I r.. Lors ol UTs further dated i 7. 1.1.2016 clarifics thrrL all the Stat,: (iovcrnments shall continuc to ck, de thc procer:dings which were pending as on th clate of the rcpcal and deal with the residuary ,r,rrks of admLnistration, management and disl , rsal of acquircd evacuee properties transferred to thc 11 MB,J&GPK,J W,A.No.12OO of 2O25 State Governments / UTs, under the 1954 Act and other relatcd Acts as per the provisions of section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897. The communication clariftes lhat no fresh deiegation of powers or revival of authorrtv is required as the same revives aulomaticaLly in the light of the Supreme Court's order in UOI Vs. Intentational Sindhi Panchayats & Ors dated 28.04.2014, upheld uide order dated 07.01.20 l6 passed in Review Pctition No.3377 of 20 l5 '"r'hich de clarcd lhat seclion 6 oI The General Clauses Act, is applicable to the Repeal Act o[ 2OO5 and that the State Governments shall continue tc-r decide the cases pending as on the clate of the Repeal Act,

15. The series of documents placed on behalf of the respondent No.1/rvrit petitioner comprehensively dislodges the stand taken on bchalf of the appellant. The notifications/ communications reflect that the appellant, who was appointed as the CompeLent Officer under the G.O.Ms.No. 7042 dated 16. I 1. 1991 under section 4 of the 195I Act, would continue to decide and settle the matters which were pending as on 06.09.2005 i.e., when the 1950 Act was repealed. The writ petitioner's Application No. 1 of 20O0 u,as made on 28.03.2000 to the \ I2 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO oJ 2O25 appellant/ tl-,c respondent No.8 requesting lor th(. .llrtntent of lands in thc four sLrrver/ nurnbers, The writ pe[itionfr,s LA, for ir-rterim protection v.,as filccl before the appellant on L(,r (J7.2002 mcaning tlrcrcb-r.'that tlie appcllant had the jurisdiction t() i,rar the ApplicaLion in 2000 and continucd to havc jurisdiction even rLir,, r 2O05.

16. Thercltre, tl-rere is r-ro conceivable reasc,n as to rvhy thc altpr-'llant s.rt ovcr tl're n,rit pctitioner's Application itr 2..i vcars without taking an1 :Lction in Lerms of the l95l Act or r:c rr:lated Acts for allotmcnt arrcl posse ssion. Admittedly, thr: rr::;r;onclcnt No.l /u,rit petitioner's A.pplicartion has not progressed sincc (.r,'. I 1.2009 and rhe appellant (thc Competent Officer) has not takert rrp t he matre r for hr'.rring. Thc respondent No. 1/writ petitioner w.as .. table to lollou., the progress of tlrc Appiication after the death of his frl rcr on 13.O2.2OlT. 1,7. What is morc shocking is the comyrl,,re abdica(ion of responsibilrtl, br, the appellant/the rcspondcnt ,,kr.8 rn shcepishly secking shclter undcr the 2O05 Act and arguing r rat rhe appcllant u,as divested ol the responsibility to decide the Apn,icatron in vierv of thr-' dcleeation made rn favour of the Senior Civil Iqflg6, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. 'lhis argument is not only incorrect, eLs borne out lrom the documcnts placed on record by the resJ,oncle nt No.l /u,rit petitioner, b -rt unforgivably misleading and sclf-serving. The appellant docs not have any credible answer to thr notilication datccl i i \ ( 13 MB,J&GPK,J w.A.No.72OO of 2025

19.08.20i0 which makes it clear that the delegation to the Officers o[ the National Capital Territory of Delhi u'as only regard to Evacuee "vith properties situated in Delhi. It is clear thal the appellant sought to rcly on a selected part of the notilrca[ion only to surt its purpose. The appellant also failed to disclose an carlier communication dated

24.O5. I980 by which the residuary files relating to Evacuee properlies s,ere transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Officers nominaLed by the State Government.

18. 'lhe appellant's argument fails altogcther in vierv of the communication dated 22.O9 .2oO8 which mandated the StaLe Government (undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and nou' Telangana) to settlc the cases pending as on 06.09.20O5 under the relevant State la'"vs. In essence, the transler of pending cases to lhe State Government vvas complete on and from 1980 and the appellant thcrefore was under a mandate to decide and settle the respondent No. 1/rvrit petitioner's Application, pcnding since 28.O3.2OOO, notu.ithstanding the repeal undcr the 2005 Act or the subsequent Act of 2OI7 or otherwise. [t is also clear that lhe selected portion ol the notification dated 19.08.201O relied by thc appellant was only for the purpose of the properties situatcd at Neu,Delhi.

19. The Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 was enacted for the purpose ol settling the property claims of pcrsons who had been .I 14 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO o! 2O25 displaced drrring tl're partirion and related strife ir lnclia. The obje<:t of tht: Ac:t uias to make special provisions for tlt.. scparation of the intcresLs of r:',,acuees front those ol olher person:r L: propertr'- in ri,hich sLrr:h olher [)ersons zrrc also interosted and for t]r . matLe rs connectecl thcres,ith. 81' sitting over the respondcnt Nr: 1/rvrit petitioner's Applicatior-r lor 25 years, the appellant has noL only frustrated the olrjcct of thr: Ar:t but also deprived two generat,rns of the claimcd orvner/s o[ tirc lands in qucstion and forced thcllr :,] litieatc before the Courts. The lrppcllar-rt simply docs not havc ,riLv clelcnce to his inactior.r in lrearins thc Application. The vcry lac.. of the appeilar-rt ch a llcnging rhe impugncd ordcr lvhereby Lhe r.1:pcllant rvas only directed to disposc o[ the Application within threr: rnonths from thc da te o[ thc r;n1;r.rgncd order would reinforce lhe : lpcllar.rt,s a bsolute Iar:k o[ comnritrront a]1d ernpathy.

20. The onll rcason that u'e have laboured Lo st:r-._. rhe background lacts rs to highlight the helplessness of the re sronde nr No. 1/r.r,rit petitioner in thc: lace of the complete apathy of the :Lppellzrnt and thc concerned [unctionaries rn lhe State administr-e tion. It is truiy startling thzrt tltc respondent No.1/writ petition(.r's Application hns been kept pcndirrg for 25 years and the appellant r)()\\ seeks lo disou,n his rcsponsibilitv under lhc cover ol repeal under th:. 2OOS Act. W l5 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.No.12OO of 2025

21. The shock expressed by the learncd Single Judge and imposition of costs is futly justified. We may note that counsel appearing lor the respondent No. 1/rvrit pctitioner exhibitecl his bona fides by requcsting rhat the costs bc paid to the Sainrk Wclfarc, Tclangana/Armed F orces FIag Dav F ur-rd, Telangana, insread of being paid to the rvrit pctitioncr.

22. Apart from holding thar the Writ Appeal is completely misconccivcd, mcritless and tainted with ma\a fi.des in misleading the Court, u'e also fincl no reason lo interferc u,ith thc costs imposcd b_r, the lcarned Singlc Judgc. The injury caused to the rcspondcnt No. 1/u,rit petitioner by rcason of the inaction of the appcllzrnt cernnot be nrcasured in rnonctary terms. Hencc, the costs stanci. Thc appcllant shzrll pa1. [he costs to the Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armcd Forces FIag Day Fund, Telangana within tr.vo n,eeks lrom today. 1'he appe llant shall dispose of thc application within four ,"veeks from today.

23. W.A.No. 1200 of 2025, along with all connecred applications, is //TRUE COPY/I SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REciqlp4p /? SECTION!FFICER To, 1 2 q 4 5 6 BSR Sri Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Narsing Rao, Aged about 76 years Occ' Advocate (comoetent officer appointed u/s 4 of Evacuee lnterest separauon_A^cI, iqiii"cjm"L iti-a-qqlzie. Street No. 5, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, 500029. fne 6'ainit< Welfare, TelanganaiArmed Forces'Flag Day Fund, Telangana' One CC to SRI VADEEND-RA JOSHI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI NIKUNJ DUGAR, Advocate [OPUC] il; cc;1; GP FoR REvENUE, High court forihe state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT oardL:r il11t2025 CC TODAY JUDGMENT WA.No.1200 of 2025 /.:' 'JI' :3=:F.r-- .,r; t4j<ti\. J/: \_ N0rt 2015 :l .'. i ::," ):.1* =1.e. .-]. t'v' DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS A ..)