User:Nyaayavaadi/Secunderabad cantonment land

'''GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY LAND FROM STATE GOVERNMENT OR ERSTWHILE HYDERABAD NIZAM GOVERNMENT FOR ESTABLISHING SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT.DEFENCE  ESTABLISHMENT AT SECUNDERABAD HAS BEEN IN ILLEGAL OCCUPATION MORE THAN 42 Sq. K.M. OR 13000 ACRES STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS. CANTONMENT CAME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT POLICY.'''

1.        Secunderabad  is the largest of all the 62 cantonments in India and also one of the largest in the world. In 1798, a subsidiary alliance for military and political cooperation was signed between the Hyderabad Nizam III - Sikandar Jah, and the British East India Company, and the Nizam agreed for the presence of an English Resident along with army, artillery and cavalry at Hyderabad. During that period of the English Cantonment was named after him as Secunderabad. When the township began in 1806, Captain Sydenham the British Resident proposed that the then Nizam, Sikander Jah Bahadur should lend his name to the Cantonment and the town surrounding it for it was he who granted the land. Thus the town originally was Sikanderabad, but later was anglicised and became, Secunderabad. Thereafter, an area north of what is now the Hussain Sagar Lake was established as a British Cantonment. The large tract of land, roughly 16 square miles (13000 ACRES) in area known as the Cantonment of Secunderabad, had been given to British Army at different times for the use of the Military authorities, starting from 1806, in which year the Subsidiary Force was permanently stationed at the capital of Hyderabad. However, unlike in Other British Cantonments of British India There was no transfer of ownership of the lands to the Government of India ( British Government ) by the Nizam Government,  in Secunderabad particularly 13 Mughlai villages,- Chinna Thokatta, Pedda Thokatta, Sitharampur, Bowinpally, Balamrai, Kakaguda, Sikh Village, Alwal, Marredpally, Rasoolpura, Busareddyguda, Bolarum, Trimulgherri,   and Lalapet. There was at no time any definite assignment of the land: land was taken up as required by the Military authorities.The Secunderabad Cantonment unlike other Cantonments in British India,had limited Jurisdiction, such as criminal and police Jurisdiction over the said villages, but nothing more.

2.	Even during British regime, One Sir William Barton had prepared a Memorandum on the Tenure of land in the administered area of Secunderabad by Government of India dated 10-10-1926, which reveals that there was no transfer of ownership of the land to British Government by the Nizam. The lands were temporarily requisitioned by the British Army from the Nizam Government to meet the exigencies of 2nd World War and for six months thereafter. The said requisition was made as per orders of Revenue Secretary of the Nizam Government in file No. 167/18 of 1354 F dated 29-10-1945,which reads: “The Government of India be informed that H.E.H. the Nizam’s Government is not prepared to open negotiations for the establishment of operational training units permanently or retain any operational Aerodromes in the H.E.H. Nizam’s State. The Original terms that the occupation be only for duration of the war and six months thereafter have to be adhered to.”

3.	All above aspects were thoroughly discussed and dealt with in the resolution of the Civil Area Committee, Secunderabad Cantonment Board dated on 21-6-1968, to which all the Defence Authorities/officers of the Secundrabad Sub-Area were Signatories. The Resolution reveals that the Defence Authorities never owned any land in Secunderabad Cantonment and that whatever land that was requisitioned temporarily for military purposes was restored to Nizam’s Government on 1-12-1945, as it was no longer required for military purposes. The extract of the proceedings at page 2 reads para 1 reads as follows:

(1) ''“ A very important distinction must be drawn between the status of Government as regards land within the Secunderabad Cantt and land in other Cantts of British India or in the Indian States. Land in other States were definitely assigned for the purposes of a Cantt as most of the land was the property of the Government of India, having been specifically assigned for the purposes of a Cantt. The Cantt of Secunderabad, in erstwhile domain of Nizam cannot be equated with the rest of the Cantts as the laws applicable in the Secunderabad Cantt were the laws prevailing in the Jagirs and Govt. of Nizam and not the British Indian laws. There was at no time any definite assignment of land ( L.R. No.5 dated 6th January 1896 to Government of India ).Starting from 1806, land was taken by the military authorities from the Nizam’s Government, as and when needed by them for cantoning of the troops, to be restored to the Nizam’s Government when no longer required for military purposes. The case of Secunderabad Town, which formerly formed part of this cantonment was restored to the Nizam’s Government, on 1-12-1945, as it was no longer required for military purposes”.''

The extract of the proceedings at page 3 reads para 2 reads as follows:

(''2) XXXXX “ The Resident through his letter No. 5 dated 6th January, 1896, addressed to the Government of India, wrote that, “ THERE IS THEREFORE NO LAND IN SECUNDERABAD WHICH ABSOLUTELY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA”. The Government of India in their final pronouncement on the Residents letter have decided not to interfere with the existing system vide letter No. 1783-1,B dated 29th June 1898”''

STATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. IN A.P. STATE ASSEMBLY ON WEDNESDAY, 13th JULY, 2004“:  The Centre has rejected the State government’s plea to merge the Secunderabad Cantonment area with the area under the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Minister for Municipal Administration Koneru Ranga Rao informed the Assembly. Ranga Rao, however, added that the government would pursue the matter again with the Defence Ministry. Replying to questions, the Minister said that defence authorities had informed the government that they cannot part with the Cantonment area because of security reasons. “The previous Telugu Desam government had written to the Defence Ministry seeking handover of the Cantonment area to ensure better amenities to the people,” said the Minister. “But the Defence Ministry had rejected it. The Congress government took up the matter soon after coming to power but it has once again been rejected.

NOVEMBER 2008:In what can result in shifting a part of the Secunderabad Cantonment to the surrounding Ranga Reddy district, in 2008 the Revenue department has allotted about 300 acres to the defence estate wing in Dharur and Vikarabad mandals of the district. This is in lieu of defence land it took over sometime ago and as compensation for cantonment land encroached upon by civilian groups. A few years ago, the state government had proposed to shift the cantonment to a nearby district and has offered to allot 1,000 acres near Zaheerabad in Medak district. But following stiff resistance from the defence wing, the idea was given up. The empowered committee meeting held on November 14 allotted 150 acres to defence estate wing in survey No 384 in Tarigopula village, which is situated about 110 kms from the city, in Dharur mandal of Ranga Reddy district. Initially some of the defence estate officers were not agreeable to accept land 100 km from the city but were forced to accept when the revenue officials said there was no huge chunk of government land anymore in Hyderabad district area. "The state government promised to give land in Jawaharnagar in Kapra area which is close to the existing cantonment area. But the land was allotted for other project. The defence wing has no option now but to accept the land in Ranga Reddy district," Defence Estate Officer of AP circle, S Balakrishna said. '''EXTRACT FROM A.P. HIGH COURT JUDGMENT 2002 (5) ALD 532, 2002 (5) ALT 370'''

“ Report dated 10-10-1926 of the Resident Sir William Barton to the Government of India reporting that in the 13 Mughlai villages there is no ownership of the lands whatsoever held by the British Government. In the said report, it is averred that no land has been assigned to the Government of India by Nizam Government for Military purposes. It is further observed that a very important distinction must be drawn between the status of Government as regards land within the Cantonment of Secunderabad and the land in Cantonments in British India or in Indian States, where land has been definitely assigned for purposes of Cantonment. In the latter case, most of the land was the property of Government at the outset, having been specially acquired for the Cantonments. In the case of Secunderabad, there has been no definite assignment; land has been handed over from time to time free of charge by the Nizam's Government for occupation by the Military authorities. This report also makes it abundantly clear that in the Civil area outside the Military areas, and excluding the 13 Mogalai villages, the control of building rests with the Cantonment authority. They can give permission to build, but this amounts merely to a license and does not convey a title to the land. The land may be owned by private individuals or by the Nizam's Government, it may be Revenue paying land or waste land used for grazing or otherwise. If it is owned by the Nizam's Government, an application for permission to buy or lease should be addressed to that Government through the Residency: if the applicant owns the land either by purchase or by hereditary rights there is no difficulty unless the land pays revenue to the Nizam's Government. In this case the sanction of the Nizam's Government would be necessary. The contents of Ex.A82 - Notification dated 28-8-1906 and the report dated 10-10-1926 (Ex.A84) referred to hereinabove would make it abundantly clear that there was no ownership of land in 13 Moghlai villages to the BritishGovernment and the land is mostly owned by the Pattedars, Inamdars, Jagirdars and Nizam and Army barracks existed in portions of the areas with permission of Nizam.In Ameer-un-nissa Begum V. Mahboob Begum, the Supreme Court while referring to the nature of sovereign function exercised by the Nizam of Hyderabad observed that "prior to integration of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive, and there were no constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any of these capacities. The firmans were expressions of the sovereign will of the Nizam and they were binding in the same way as any other law; nay, they would override all other laws which were in conflict with them. So long as a particular firman held the field, that alone would govern or regulate the rights of the parties concerned, though it could be annulled or modified by a later Firman at any time that the Nizam willed."Similar is the view taken by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad V. Akram Ali.In Union of India V. Muffakam Jah, the Supreme Court while referring to the position of the late Nizam observed that "if the Ruler had exercised sovereign power in his State and has set apart any property as private property no dispute can arise concerning the same."