Excessive Court docket dismisses competent officer’s enchantment over value imposition

The Telangana Excessive Court docket dismissed an enchantment filed by Mohan Rao, the competent officer appointed underneath part of Evacuee Curiosity Separation Act-1951, difficult imposition of ₹ 50,000 prices on him by a single choose for failing ‘to settle a land dispute even after a interval of 25 years’.

A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar noticed “it’s actually startling” that the competent officer had stored the file pending for 25 years. “What’s extra surprising is the entire abdication of duty by the officer in sheepishly looking for shelter underneath the 2005 Act”, the bench mentioned in its order.

The competent officer contended that he was divested of the duty to finalize the land dispute because the energy to resolve the matter was delegated the Senior Civil Choose of Tis Hazari courtroom in Delhi. Ruling that the officer’s competition was not right, the bench famous that he had no credible reply to the notification issued in 1980 which amply made clear that the delegation was solely with regard to Evacuee properties situated in Delhi.

The officer additionally failed to tell the courtroom that the residual recordsdata regarding evacuee properties had been transferred to the federal government of Andhra Pradesh, the bench held. The 1951 Act was launched for settling the property claims of individuals who had been displaced throughout the partition and the associated strife in India. The competent officer “not solely pissed off the item of the Act but in addition disadvantaged two generations of the claimed house owners of the land and compelled them to litigate earlier than the courts by sitting over the applying for 25 years,” the bench mentioned.

The bench famous that the “shock expressed by the only choose and imposition of prices is totally justified”. It added that the enchantment was fully misconceived, meritless and gained with mala fides in deceptive the courtroom. The harm prompted to the petitioner because of the inaction of the officer “can’t be measured in financial phrases”, it mentioned.