9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Survey No. 129/67 is an Evacuee Property of M. Asif Aziz son of Liyakat Ali Jung and vested with the Government. 2. Whether the Government got locus standi to file the case. 3. Whether R. Koteswara Rao purchased it from Asif Aziz son of Nayeem Asif who was the lawful owner of the property. 4. Whether the Special Court got jurisdiction to entertain the application. 5. Whether the common order is sustainable or not. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Survey No. 129/67 is an Evacuee Property of M. Asif Aziz son of Liyakat Ali Jung and vested with the Government: The Government claimed that Survey No. 129/67 was an Evacuee Property belonging to M. Asif Aziz, who migrated to Pakistan and thus vested with the Government. However, the court found no acceptable evidence that the properties of M. Aziz Asif were declared as evacuee properties. The notification No. 26/51 dated 22.5.1951 (Ex.A1) did not clearly establish the property as evacuee. The court concluded that the Government failed to establish that there was a declaration of the property as evacuee property as per the law. 2. Whether the Government got locus standi to file the case: The court examined whether the Government had the right to file the case under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The Act defines land grabbers and the process for declaring properties as evacuee. The court found that the Government did not have the locus standi to file the case as it failed to prove that the property was an evacuee property or Government land. 3. Whether R. Koteswara Rao purchased it from Asif Aziz son of Nayeem Asif who was the lawful owner of the property: The respondents claimed that R. Koteswara Rao purchased the property from Asif Aziz son of Nayeem Asif, who had no relation to the evacuee M. Asif Aziz. The court found that the Government could not prove that the property belonged to M. Asif Aziz, the evacuee. Therefore, the court did not find any fraud or illegality in the purchase by Koteswara Rao. 4. Whether the Special Court got jurisdiction to entertain the application: The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. It was determined that the Special Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application. However, since the Government failed to establish its claim over the property, the jurisdiction aspect became secondary. 5. Whether the common order is sustainable or not: The common order dated 10.3.2004 by the Special Court dismissed the L.G.C. Nos. 17 and 114 of 1999 filed by the State and allowed L.G.C. No. 28 of 2002. The court upheld this order, stating that the Government failed to establish its claim over the property. The court also noted that the respondents failed to establish the identity of the vendor of Koteswara Rao, but this was not crucial since the Government's claim was unsubstantiated. Conclusion: The writ petitions filed by the State (W.P. Nos. 15679, 15697, 16120, and 26448 of 2005) were dismissed. The dismissal of W.P. No. 15697 of 2005 was specified to be only in respect of the Government's claim and did not affect the rival claims among private parties in L.G.C. No. 28 of 2002, which was pending in W.P. No. 6171 of 2005. No costs were ordered.
|
