- (1.) Competing claims to ownership of a property in Secunderabad Cantonment, between the Petitioners and the Respondents has resulted in the Writ Petition, challenging the order impugned.
(2.) Heard Sri Challa Sitaramiah learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt. A. Anasuya for the Petitioners and the learned Central Government standing counsel Sri T. Venkata Raju Goud for the Respondents.
(3.) The Order, dated 30-05-2002, in case No. 21/188/EV/SY. No. 528/B. No. 176, passed by the 3rd Respondent - the Defence Estate Officer, holding that an extent of Acs.02 - 80 gts comprised in G.L.R. Sy. No. 528 of the Secunderabad Cantonment is a public premises and the constructions carried out therein by the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 herein as setout in the schedule to the Notice, dated 29-12-1995 are unauthorised; and directing demolition (by the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 within 30 days); and in the event of their refusal or failure to comply with the Order within the stipulated period, directing the Estate Officer or an officer authorised by him to demolish the constructions, is assailed in this Writ Petition. THE FACTS PLEADED BY THE PETITIONERS: [A] Bungalow No. 176 in land admeasuring Acs.2.6224 bounded by a compound wall at Bowenpally, Secunderabad, originally belonged to Mirza Parvarish Ali. Parvarish Ali sold the said property to Sri B.D. Chenoy through a registered sale deed, dated 18 - 08 - 1905. Eversince, the property has been in the ownership, custody and possession of private individuals. On the death of Sri B.D. Chenoy his wife and children succeeded to the property. After death of Sri B.D. Chenoy's wife, Smt. Avabai Chenoy the Petitioners who are the daughter and sons of Late Sri B.D. Chenoy inherited the schedule property and are in exclusive possession thereof. [B] The Petitioners filed declarations before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in 1976. The 3rd Respondent and competent authority (ULC), Secunderabad Cantonment, conducted enquiry and passed an order determining that the Petitioners are holding excess land. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 33 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act -the Director Defence Estate (Lands) Southern Cantonment. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Thereagainst the Petitioners filed W.P. No. 5187 of 1982 and batch before this Court. The writ petitions were allowed and the cases remitted to the Appellate Authority; before whom the appeals are pending. [C] Pursuant to different notifications issued on 02-11-1947 under the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act [Hyderabad Act IX of 1309 Fasli] large extents of land were acquired for expansion of the Begumpet aerodrome. Among the properties acquired were 10,014 Sq.yds. including bungalow No. 164 of Ms. Feroze Nadirsha Chenoy; 11,500 Sq.yds. together with bungalow No. 165-2-B-26 of Mr. S. Madhavarao; bungalow in an area of 8,407 Sq.yds belonging to the Petitioners; a land and bungalow No. 171 belonging to E.P. Chenoy; bungalow No. 161, including the appurtenant land belonging to E.J. Chenoy; bungalow No. 166 -land and out-houses of H.S. Chenoy; and bungalow No. 163 -land and out-houses belonging to F.S. Chenoy. Compensation only for the buildings was paid and not for the land. The claimants sought reference under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act and the references came to be numbered as O.P. Nos. 19, 39, 43, 45, 63, 64 & 65 of 1952. By the common judgment dated 01 - 11 - 1961 of the Reference Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the O.P's were allowed. The Reference Court held that the acquired properties did not belong to the Cantonment Authorities but belonged to the claimants and they were entitled to compensation for acquisition of the lands as well. The Reference Court clearly held that the ownership of the land vested in and continued with the claimants but not with the Secunderabad Cantonment. In particular a finding was recorded that lands in Thokatta Village belonged to private individuals and neither to the Central Government nor the Cantonment. [D] The 3rd Respondent issued a notice dated 17-07-1997 to the Petitioners alleging that they are in unauthorised possession of the enumerated premises and asked them to vacate. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed C.M.A. No. 172 of 1997 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 10 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter 'The 1971 Act'). By the order dated 31 - 01 - 2002 C.M.A. No. 172 of 1997 was allowed and the 3rd Respondent was required to enquire into the matter in detail. [E] Though the Petitioners claimed ownership of the property, denied any right title or authority of the Government or the Cantonment in respect of the said property, and disputed the very authority and jurisdiction of the 3rd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent by the impugned proceedings determined the land as the property of the Cantonment and directed demolition of the constructions in the schedule property and ordered eviction of the Petitioners. [F] Since the property in question is not a public premises and belongs to the Petitioners, the 3rd Respondent has No. jurisdiction and the entire initiation, processing and conclusion of proceedings under the provisions of the 1971 Act is unsustainable. THE RESPONSE:;