Shocking Abdication of Duty for 25 Years Cannot Be Justified by Repeal of Law: Telangana High Court Dismisses Writ Appeal in Evacuee Property Case

“Repeal Does Not Erase Responsibility”, In a strongly-worded and precedent-reinforcing judgment Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Competent Officer appointed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, who had shockingly failed to act for 25 years on a claim for correction in a 1962 sale certificate.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar upheld the earlier order of the Single Judge, which directed the appellant to dispose of Application No. 1 of 2000 within a stipulated time and imposed ₹50,000 as costs, holding the appellant’s conduct as “shocking,” “misleading,” and “self-serving”.

“The Appellant Cannot Escape His Statutory Duty By Hiding Behind the Repeal”: Court Condemns 25-Year Delay

The central issue before the Court was whether the repeal of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 by the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 extinguished the jurisdiction of a Competent Officer to adjudicate pending matters, such as Application No. 1/2000 seeking correction of four omitted survey numbers in the original 1962 registered sale certificate.

The appellant argued that following the 2005 repeal and the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017, he was divested of all authority, especially since a 2010 notification delegated powers to a Senior Civil Judge in Delhi.

However, the High Court decisively rejected this contention and held:

“There is no conceivable reason as to why the appellant sat over the writ petitioner’s application for 25 years… The argument that the repeal of the 1951 Act erased the appellant’s responsibility is not only legally untenable, but unforgivably misleading and self-serving.”

A 1962 Error That Led to a Generational Legal Battle

The legal heirs of Saleha Fatima Begum, who had acquired property via a Registered Sale Certificate dated 17.12.1962, discovered decades later that four survey numbers (Sy.No.122/1, Sy.No.396/2, Sy.No.438, and Sy.No.396/4) had been erroneously omitted. A representation for rectification was submitted in 1988, and the matter ultimately led to the filing of Application No. 1 of 2000 before the appellant, who was designated as a Competent Officer under G.O.Ms.No.1042 dated 16.11.1991.

Despite interim orders and follow-ups, the application lay dormant since 2009, and the father of the respondent passed away in 2017, without seeing a resolution. The appellant then attempted to take cover under statutory repeal to avoid addressing the claim.

“Section 6 of the General Clauses Act Protects Pending Rights”: Repeal Did Not Affect Jurisdiction for Existing Claims

The Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserved the appellant’s jurisdiction to adjudicate pending claims even after repeal of the 1951 Act in 2005. The Bench found that a series of government notifications and communications, including those issued in 1980, 2008, 2010, and 2016, reinforced the legal position that pending claims were to be handled by the State Government through designated Competent Officers.

Referring to these documents, the Court observed:

“The series of documents placed on record comprehensively dislodge the appellant’s stand… The writ petitioner’s application was made before repeal and continued to be within the jurisdiction of the appellant thereafter.”

It was further noted that the 2010 notification relied upon by the appellant only applied to evacuee properties situated in Delhi, and the appellant had selectively relied on portions of it, suppressing explanatory context.

“The Appellant’s Conduct is Startling and His Defence is Legally and Morally Unacceptable”: Court Laments Bureaucratic Apathy

Justice Bhattacharya, writing for the Bench, severely criticised the conduct of the Competent Officer, stating:

“The very fact of the appellant challenging the impugned order, whereby he was merely directed to dispose of the application, reinforces his absolute lack of commitment and empathy.”

The Court emphasized that the appellant’s failure had not only defeated the object of the 1951 Act—meant to settle property claims of partition victims—but had also caused generational hardship to the legal heirs of the original purchaser.

It added:

“By sitting over the writ petitioner’s application for 25 years, the appellant has deprived two generations of the claimed owners and forced them to litigate before the Courts.”

Costs Upheld and Directed to Be Paid to Sainik Welfare Fund

Affirming the Single Judge’s decision, the Court justified the ₹50,000 cost imposed on the appellant, holding:

“The injury caused by the appellant’s inaction cannot be measured in monetary terms. The costs are fully justified.”

Accepting the respondent’s bona fide request, the Bench ordered that the amount be deposited with the Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, rather than to the respondent.

The Court concluded that the appeal was not only misconceived but mala fide, and said:

“This Writ Appeal is completely misconceived, meritless and tainted with mala fides in misleading the Court.”

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal with firm directions:

• The ₹50,000 cost must be deposited within two weeks to the Sainik Welfare Fund.
• The appellant (Competent Officer) must dispose of Application No. 1 of 2000 within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025