KSB ALI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 04-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 698 
A 
. 
KSBALI 
B 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 15571-15572 of2017) 
OCTOBER 04, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Remedy: 
Appropriate remedy - Claim by appellant to the title of 
C property in question - On his as well as on behalf of 203 others, 
claiming to be legal heir of the owner of the property- Claim based 
on order dated 15.02.1954 passed by Atiyat Court which wasfimher 
approved by Revenue Minister - By order dated 15.04.2002, the 
claim was rejected by Revenue Department - By subsequent Memo 
D 
dated 06.05.2004, order dated 15.04.2002 was withdrawn and 
directed to instruct the authorities concerned to implement the orders 
ofAtiyat Court- Memo dated 31.07.2004 reiterated the Memo dated 
06.05.2004 - Thereafter, Memo dated 21.05.2005 and Order dated . 
06.06.2005 concluded interalia that the successors of the property 
E 
F 
in question were entitled only to commutation amounts and that the 
issue was finally decided by the order dated 15.04.2002 and the 
subsequent orders dated 06.05.2004 and 31.07.2004 were without 
jyrisdiction and competence -
Subsequently Urban and 
Development Authority issued tenders in re.~pect of land in question 
-Appellant filed writ petition challenging the tenders and seeking 
declaration that the Authority had no right in the property - Petition 
was dismissed by Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High . 
Court in writ appeal - Jn Supreme Court, the appellant (writ 
petitioner) withdrew the petition with liberty to pursue the 
"appropriate remedy" - Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed 
before High Court seeking the same relief and were tagged with 
G another writ petition earlier filed b.'v the appellant - Single' Judge 
invalidated the memo dated 21.05.2005 on the ground that is was 
in violation of principles of natural justice and directing the 
Government to reconsider the issue after affording an opportunity 
of hearing - The order of Single Judge was challenged by the State, 
but not py the appellants/petitioners as against the part of the 
H 
698 
KSB ALI v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
judgment which rejected the substantive reliefs sought by the 
·appellants/petitioners - Writ appeal was allowed by Division Bench 
699 
A· 
of High Court - On appeal, held: The appellant after having 
withdrawn his writ petition, could not have taken recourse to another 
writ petition on the same facts and grounds - Another writ petition 
could not be called "appropriate remedy" and taking recourse to it 
would constitute an abuse of the process of Court - Appellant has 
also failed to establish that he was authorised to prepresent the 
case of 203 legal heirs - Other petitioners/claimants also failed to 
establish the basis of their claims - Single Judge as well as the 
Division Bench had not adjudicated upon the merits of the case, 
hence the appellants cannot rake up the issues which were not 
C 
decided by courts below - Even the writ petition challenging memo 
dated 21. 05.2005 was not maintainable - Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l. So far as the appellant 'A' (in Civil Appeal No. 
D 
15571-15572 of 2017) is concerned, his writ petition no. 10084 
of 2006 which was filed in the High Court after passing of the 
order dated 31st July, 2007 in SLP(C) No. 23392 of 2007 by this 
Court, was not maintainable. This Court, by the said order, had 
permitted him to withdraw his writ petition No; 14434 of 2006 
and 'to take appropriate remedy'.Obviously, the remedy could 
not be in the form of another writ petition on the same facts and 
grounds which were pleaded earlier. The High Court has rightly 
held that having giYen up his pursuit of public law r\)medy in 
earlier abandoned proceedings, filing of the fresh writ petition or 
pursue pending writ petition No. 10084 of 2006 would constitute 
an abuse of the process of the Court. Appellant 'A' could not 
maintain the writ petition as it was not 'appropriate remedy' as 
granted by this Court.[Para 20)(717-G-H; 718-A] 
E 
F 
2. The High Court is also right in holding that neither the 
appellant 'A' had established by specific pleadii,gs nor by due 
G 
authorisation on record that he was authorised to represent the 
case of 203 legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-I. Therefore, his appeals 
arc not even maintainable. The High Court has specifically 
remarked, and rightly so, that even the other appellants did no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.