Moinuddin Ghalib and Others vs Union of India and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The writ petitioners claim to be the great grand children and legal heirs of one Nawab Ghalib Jung @ Laiq-ud-Dowla Bahadur @ Nawab Ghalib-ul-Mulk @ Musaallam Jung who was the absolute owner of certain properties in Hyderabad and other areas. He lent a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,87,500/- to Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills Co. Ltd. during the year 1893 and 1901 and registered mortgage deeds were also executed in his favour. The company agreed to repay the amounts in installments with interest at 9% per annum. The entire land of Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills Co. Ltd., including buildings, houses and infrastructures were mortgaged in favour of Nawab Ghalib-ul-Mulk. Nawab Ghalib-ul-Mulk died in the year 1904 leaving behind him his wife and son. On his death, the entire estate was seized by the police of the H.E.H. Nizam VI of Hyderabad. The estate was kept with Nizam under police custody. Later it was transferred to the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act (Act 5 of 1307 Fasli) in the year 1324 Fasli (1919). The Court was seized of the properties. The petitioners made a representation to the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad, who were designated as the Court of Wards to release the properties. An order was passed releasing the schedule property in favour of Najeebuddin Ghalib. Subsequently schedule property was taken over by the Central Government under the Sick Industrial Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974. In terms of the said Act, the right, title and interest vested with the Central Government. Since the Union of India failed to pass any order on the representation made by the petitioners, they filed Writ Petition Nos. 18784-18809/2000 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the schedule property to the petitioners therein and alternatively to pay compensation in terms of the Act in respect of Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills.

One Abdul Gaffor also filed a writ petition No. 20512/2000 claiming to have an interest in the schedule property. The writ petitions were taken up for consideration and by the order dated 19.06.2000 the Central Government was directed to dispose off the applications filed by the contesting parties who were claiming ownership rights over the property in question. It was held that the writ petitioners in writ petition No. 20512/2000 have a right to set up a claim within a period of three weeks. Thereafter petitions were filed before the Central Government in accordance with law. Subsequent to the said order, the writ petitioners made one more representation dated 08.11.2004. No orders were passed thereon. In the meanwhile, Gulbarga Urban Development Authority and Deputy Commissioner and Chairman Gulbarga Urban Development Authority Gulbarga issued a public auction notice on 10.12.2004 proposing to auction the vacant sites formed in the public schedule property. Hence, the petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 2208-2233/2005 seeking to quash the same. By the order dated 17.02.2005 the learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that there is no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly they were dismissed. However, in pursuance to the order of the Division Bench of this Court referred herein above, the Central Government was directed to dispose off the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law within three months from that date. Even then no orders were passed. That on 10.05.2005 petitioners received a letter from the Central Government stating that the petitioners have not filed any application. Therefore once again the petitioner filed an application on 23.06.2005. There was no response to the same. On 09.01.2006 a lawyers notice was issued. Nothing came of it. Hence they filed Writ Petition No. 11715/2006 seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.06.2005. By the order dated 15.12.2006 the Union of India was directed to consider Annexure-J - representation therein within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Union of India. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

Sri Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous and requires to be set aside. That the question of limitation in filing the writ petition would not arise for consideration. That the Union of India committed an error firstly by holding that there was an inordinate delay in filing the representation notwithstanding the orders passed by this Court. Further the reference made under Section 25(4) of the Act would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Hence, it is pleaded that the writ petitions be allowed.

Sri A.M. Nagral, learned counsel for the 5th respondent - Commissioner, Urban Development Authority defends the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are absent. Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented.

Heard learned counsels and examined the material on record. The Union of India while considering the directions issued by this Court were of the view that the entire exercise could not be made by the office because there is no application filed by the petitioners regarding their ownership, right over the land, machinery of the M.S.K. Mills Gulbarga within the stipulated period i.e. 1.4.77 to 31.5.77. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11715/2006 is to the effect of considering Annexure-J, a representation by the writ petitioners dated 23.06.2005. The order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 20512/2000 connected with Writ Petition Nos. 18784-18809/2000 dated 19.06.2000 directed the Central Government to dispose off the applications already filed by the contesting respondents. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20512/2000 was granted three weeks time to file his claim. The findings of the Union of India is to the effect that no application of the writ petitioners herein were to be found. That the application in terms of the Sick Industrial Undertakings (Nationalization) Act should have been filed within the stipulated period i.e. 1.4.77 to 31.5.77 and the same was not done. However, in terms of the order of the Division Bench, the subsequent applications should have been filed by the writ petitioners herein within the time as stipulated by the Division Bench. Even that has not been done. In order to overcome this lacuna, a subsequent application has been made by the writ petitioners on 26.03.2005. Due to non consideration of this application, Writ Petition No. 11715/2006 was filed. The learned Single Judge therefore directed that this application be considered in accordance with law. The application referred in the writ petition was an application dated 26.03.2005. The Union of India have therefore considered the said application and have rejected it as being barred by time. In terms of the 1974 Act the application should have been filed between 01.04.1977 and 31.05.1977. The same has not been done nor has the learned Single Judge condoned the delay in filing the application or such order of a like nature. Therefore, the consideration as directed is in accordance with law. The law in terms of 1974 Act does not postulate belated applications. Therefore, the application was rejected on that ground. However, the Union of India has made a reference in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act in terms whereof the petitioners were entitled to seek the relief in the said reference.

So far as the order of the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, liberty was granted to the petitioner therein to make a subsequent application to consider his claim under the Act. Even though the Act postulates limitation, the same was extended by the order of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 20512/2000. Therefore, the order of the Division Bench would have to be complied with provided such a representation or application was made to the Central Government within a period of three weeks as stated by the Division Bench. Even as on date that has not been done by the petitioners. Therefore the findings of the Central Government that there is absence of material to show that there is application filed even within the extended time granted by the Division Bench is backed by the records. Under these circumstances the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity nor is there any error. The order of the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 11715/2006 was to consider the representation dated 23.06.2005 in accordance with law. The same has been done. The order passed by the Division Bench was to consider the representation as well as the future representation to be filed within three weeks. Thereafter no such application has been filed. The writ petitioners have failed to take advantage of the said order. Hence, I'' am of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned order.

Further, the Union of India in terms of the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act has made a reference to the Principal Court of original jurisdiction. Section 25(4) of the Act as follows:

"(4) Where any machinery, equipment or other property in a sick textile undertaking has vested in the National Textile Corporation, but such machinery, equipment or other property does not belong to the owner of such sick textile undertaking, the amount specified in column (4) of the First Schedule against such sick textile undertaking shall on a reference made to it by the Commissioner, be apportioned by the Court between the owner of such sick textile undertaking and the owner of such machinery, equipment or other property having due regard, to the value of such machinery, equipment or other property on the appointed day" 8. Therefore reference being made in terms of section 25(4) of the Act, the petitioners could seek the relief that they would be entitled to. Therefore the writ petitioners would have to agitate their dispute in the reference made by the Union of India.

Certain persons seek impleadment claiming to be the legal heirs of Ghalib-ul-Mulk. They are also entitled to seek relief as claimed by the other petitioners. Under these circumstances the impleadment of these persons in this writ petition would not arise for consideration. It is needless to state that in view of the impugned order making a reference under Section 25(4) of the Act, the proposed respondents herein are also at liberty to participate in the said proceedings. They are entitled to pursue their application in the said reference. The authorities to consider their applications in accordance with law.

Hence, I do find any ground to interfere with the well considered impugned order. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Rule discharged.