Hyderabad: In a major relief to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) with regard to its prestigious Golden Mile Project at Kokapet, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the claim of K.S.B. Ali and others, who claim to be the legal heirs of Nawab Nusarath Jung 1, and have been fighting for the past several years for ownership of lands that were auctioned by the HMDA in 2006.
The HMDA (then known as HUDA), had auctioned 70 acres of land in Kokapet village, Rajendranagar mandal, in July 2006. The auction had fetched HUDA Rs 703 crore, including a bid amount of Rs 14.5 crore per acre for a five-acre plot.
Reputed names like Prestige Gardens Estate Group from Bengaluru, Today from Delhi, My Home Constructions Pri-vate Ltd, Hyderabad, Lake Point Builders, Mumbai, Madhucon Properties, Pio-neer Telafone Ltd. of Viceroy Group, IBC Know-ledge Park, Bengaluru, and Kailash Ganga Construc-tions were among the successful bidders.
During the auction, Mr Ali for himself and in his representative capacity on behalf of 203 co-legal heirs of Nawab Nusarath Jung Bahadur-I (who died in 1875), moved the Hyderabad High Court seeking to declare the tenders called for by the HMDA for sale of 100.00 acres (30 acres more) in Kokapet village as malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The petitioner claimed that the late Nawab was the holder of 1635,35 acres of land situated in Koutham Kunta (which subsequently came to be known as Asadnagar and presently as Kokapet).
He also claimed that on February 15, 1954 the Court of Nazim Atiyath (which came into existence under the provisions of the Hyderabad (Telanga Area) Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952) passed an order holding that these lands in Kokapet village deserve to be confirmed as Madad-E-Maash (grant-in-aid) in favour of the heirs of the late Nusrat Jung.
A single judge on July 14, 2006 dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had raised a title dispute over immovable property and that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, an enquiry into such a dispute cannot be undertaken.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved an appeal before a division bench of the High Court and the bench, referring to an order passed by the civil court in OS No 512-1973, declared that the Nazim Atiyat Court had no power to confer rights over jagir lands except to the extent of cash grants.
Mr Ali then moved the Supreme Court and a two member bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan has now dismissed his plea while upholding the division bench order of the High Court.
It may be worth mentioning here that after Mr Ali filed his petition, the successful bidders had approached the High Court seeking refund of their deposits as there was delay in handing over the property to them. They also blamed the HMDA for keeping them in the dark about the title dispute. In April 2010, a single judge had directed the HMDA to refund the deposits within three months.
Aggrieved by the order, HMDA had appealed and a division bench in 2012 ruled that HMDA did not have to refund the amount to the bidders of what was known as the Golden Mile Project.
