HYDERABAD: Displeased with the action of the authorities for non-implementation of the court orders, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court has recently resolved a 23-year old litigation directing the state government to take necessary steps ensuring that the legal representatives of the petitioner get possession of their lands encroached by others. The dispute is about a valuable land admeasuring about 31 acres was situated at Kandikal village, Bandlaguda mandal of Hyderabad district which is under illegal occupation of 645 persons.
"It is a matter of deep regret that though the original petitioner (late Sultan Mohinuddin) succeeded before the Special Court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in the year 1997, he could not enjoy the fruits of his success during his lifetime. On his demise, his legal heirs were still fighting the case before the court. The private respondents are thriving on vexatious litigation frustrating the efforts of the successors of the original petitioner. Even now attempts are being made by certain third parties who have not participated in the legal litigation for more than two decades to thwart the efforts of the petitioners to take possession of the land to which they are legitimately entitled to enjoy", the bench observed.
The bench comprising Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy and Justice DVSS Somayajulu was allowing the petition filed by the legal heirs of the original petitioner seeking justice in the case.
In Dec 1997, the Special Court passed orders in favour of Mohinuddin directing the authorities to implement the order within three months. Later, he filed another petition seeking directions to the RDO to take steps for taking possession of the grabbed land as per the court order. The RDO while implementing the court order, told the petitioner that he was entitled only to the extent permitted to hold under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Besides, the RDO also issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to bear the expenses incurred towards taking possession of the subject land. Aggrieved with the same, he moved the high court for relief.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the bench expressed its displeasure with the authorities for failure to implement the order of the Special Court in letter and spirit. "The ingenuity of the encroachers on one side and indifference and lacklustre approach of the executive apparatus on the other side are mocking at the efficacy of the legal system which may eventually drive the litigant public to approach antisocial elements for redressal of their grievances. Such a situation does not augur well for an orderly society. The private respondents, or even third parties for that matter, have no semblance of right to remain in possession of the land in the light of the order of the Special Court conclusively adjudicating the right of the petitioners. The enormity of efforts to flush out the illegal occupants cannot be a constraint in effectuating the judicial order passed by the competent court of law", the bench said while allowing the petition.