Telangana High Court
Bukhtyar Khan, vs The State Of Telangana And 52 Others on 28 October, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NOS.28635 OF 2018, 38277, 40374 OF 2022
AND 2151 OF 2023
CONTENTS
DETAILS OF THE WRIT PETITIONS AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT:- .....3
A) W.P. No. 28635 OF 2018: - ...................................................... 3
B) W.P. No. 38277 of 2022:- .......................................................... 4
C) W.P.No.40374 of 2022:- ............................................................ 4
D) W.P.No. 2151 of 2023:- ............................................................. 5
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:- .......................................................6
A) W.P.No.28635 of 2018:- ............................................................ 6
B) W.P.No.40374 of 2022:- .......................................................... 14
C) W.P.No. 38277 of 2022 and W.P.No.2151 of 2022:- ............. 17
CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:-.....................................18
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos. 15 to 57 IN W.P.NO.40374 OF
2022 (UNOFFICIAL RESPONDENTS) ............................................................31
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:- ..........................................................................38
MUNTAKHAB:- ..................................................................................................40
EARLIER PROCEEDINGS:- ............................................................................43
1. O.S.No.10 of 1962: ..................................................................... 43
2. O.S.No.47 of 1967:- .................................................................... 43
3. Appeals:- ..................................................................................... 44
4. O.S.No. 130 of 1982:- ................................................................. 44
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
2
5. W.P.No.8130 of 2002:- ............................................................... 44
6. W.P.No.29387 of 2021:- ............................................................. 44
LEGAL PRECEDENTS / JUDGEMENTS .......................................................61
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................88
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NOS.28635 OF 2018, 38277, 40374 OF 2022
AND 2151 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
–
The lis involved in all the four writ petitions and subject
property is common and therefore they were heard together and
decided by way of this common order.
2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.28635 of 2018; Mr. Omar A. Pasha, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.40374 of 2022, Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Pratap, learned counsel for the
petitioners in both W.P.No.38277 of 2022 and W.P.No.2151 of 2022
and Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for unofficial
respondents 15 to 57 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue,
extensively.
3. DETAILS OF THE WRIT PETITIONS AND THE
RELIEF SOUGHT:-
A) W.P. No. 28635 OF 2018: –
This writ petition is filed by Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan to declare
the action of respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch4
over the property admeasuring Ac.73-39 guntas in Sy.No.63 situated
at Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) damaging the same by
erecting the board with the caption “Government Land” as illegal.
B) W.P. No. 38277 of 2022:-
This writ petition is filed by Mr.Bukthyar Khan and two others
to declare the action of Respondent No.5/District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District in passing the impugned proceedings dated
10.08.2022 in file No.E1/1042/2022 recommending Commissioner
and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps for carrying out
amendments of entries by de-notifying the Prohibitory List under
Section 22A of the Stamps and Registration Act, concerning lands in
Sy.No.63/2 (old Sy.No.13) to an extent of Ac. 52-00 guntas located in
Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, including the MEMO No.8077/2022 dated 19.08.2022 as
illegal.
C) W.P.No.40374 of 2022:-
This writ petition is filed by Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan to declare
the proceedings of Respondent No.5/District Collector Ranga Reddy
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch5
District dated 08.08.2022, in File No. A3/84/2022, all consequential
proceedings and papers issued by him as illegal.
D) W.P.No. 2151 of 2023:-
This writ petition is filed by Mr. Bukthyar Khan to declare the
action of Respondent No.4/Commissioner and Director, Survey
Settlements and Land Records (SSLR) in passing impugned
proceedings in File No.F1/1171/2022 dated 30.07.2022, consequential
proceedings dated 08.08.2022 of Respondent No.5 District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District, proceedings in File No. A3/84/2022 of
respondent No.9/Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records
(S&LR), Ranga Reddy District, as illegal.
4. Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan filed two Writ Petitions i.e
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and 40374 of 2022 seeking the above stated
reliefs. Mr.Bukthyar Khan and two others filed two Writ Petitions i.e
W.P.No.38277 of 2022 and 2151 of 2023. Mr. Bukthyar Khan and
Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan are own brothers and Smt. Nasrath Yar Khan
W/o Nadir Yar Khan and Smt. Iffath Ali Khan W/o Hasan Ali Khan
are their sisters.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
6
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
A) W.P.No.28635 of 2018:-
i) They are the absolute owners and possessors of land
admeasuring an area of Ac.78-37 guntas in Survey No.63 located in
Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
ii) He is the direct descendant of the family of Paigahs and the HH
Nizam, the VI of Hyderabad and also related to HEH, the Nizam of
Hyderabad. His late great great grandfather Sir Vikar ul Umra was a
paigah, a noble associate of the Nizams of the Hyderabad. He was also
the Prime Minister of the then Nizam State. His great great
grandmother Smt. Jahandar-unnisa Begum gifted the entire land to the
government which is now the Hyderabad Public School, the then
Jagirdar College. They own vast lands, palaces, Dewdi, Bungalows
and lands in and around Hyderabad as well as Maharashtra and Saudi
Arabia. His Great great grandfather Sir Vikal ul Umra gifted the
Falaknuma Palace to Late Nizam VI.
iii) Considering the said facts and their position in the society, there
was absolutely no need for his forefathers to grab the government
land. The government has not maintained its records properly. The
government does not have proper record. Even according to the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch7
Tahsildar, the said settlement was not done properly and they should
have been given patta. Till today no patta was given.
iv) Thus, they are the absolute owners of the subject property and is
in possession of the same. Suddenly after 100 years, the government is
coming and erecting its boards now. They have destroyed movable
properties and interfering with their peaceful possession over the
subject property.
v) Thus, according to the petitioners, the subject property is their
ancestral property.
vi) Vide GO Ms.No.943 Rev. (Assgn-III) Dept., Dt. 20.09.1989,
Government accorded sanction of alienation of Ac.63-07gts in Survey
No. 63 of Guttala Begumpet Village to the Telugu University.
vii) His mother, Mrs. Late Lateefunissa Begum W/o Late Ahmed
Yar Khan and other successors of Sultan ul Mulk including petitioner
filed W.P.No.15487 of 1989 challenging the said sanction of
alienation vide GO Ms. No.943 dated 20.09.1989 and claimed that
they are the owners of the subject property.
viii) This Court, vide order dated 12.02.1990 in W.P.No.15487 of
1989 held that Writ must succeed on the question of violation of the
principles of natural justice. The impugned order, it is not in dispute,
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch8
has not been preceded by a notice to the petitioners therein. With the
said observations, this Court set aside the impugned GO Ms.No.943,
dated 20.09.1989.
ix) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred an
appeal vide W.A.No. 468 of 1990 which was dismissed at the
admission stage vide order dated 18.04.1990. Division Bench also
ordered not to alienate the subject property in any manner whatsoever
including agreement of sale etc, not to alter the nature of land.
Proceedings, if any, initiated for assigning the subject property may be
completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of the said order
but only after giving notice to the Writ Petitioners therein.
x) After the said order of the Division Bench, the Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District (Respondent No.4) issued notice to the
petitioners therein to file claims if any within one week from the date
of the said notice. They have filed objections on 01.08.1990.
xi) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No.4) passed
an order dated 21.09.1992 vide proceedings No. D1/12495/89 holding
that the alienation proposals be dropped for the present pending
decision about the correction of entries by the Commissioner, SSLR
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
9
(Respondent No.2). It was further held that as the matter was pending
enquiry with Respondent No.2, he did not intend to go into the merits
and demerits of the case.
xii) Subsequently, Respondent No.2 i.e Commissioner, SSLR vide
order dated 23.03.1994 in File No.B5/405/90 gave a finding that the
predecessors in title of the petitioners therein appears to have been
granted assignment patta to an extent of Ac.22-20 guntas by the Sarf-
e-khas Authorities and extent of at least Ac.22-20 guntas has to be
declared as patta land instead of Government land, Sy.No.63 needs to
be examined thoroughly. Accordingly, matter was remanded back to
District Collector, Ranga Reddy.
xiii) Thereafter, respondent No.4-Joint Collector Ranga Reddy
District, took up the matter and vide proceedings No.D1/12495/89
dated 29.12.1994 disposed of the matter, recommending the case for
settlement errors under Section 87 of AP (Telangana Area) Land
Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli ( for short, ‘1317 F’) in respect of land
admeasuring Acs.22-20 guntas after condoning the delay in filing the
petition and for further action.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
10
xiv) On 05.08.1995, a draft approval for correction of record was
prepared for the purpose of condonation of delay and seek sanction of
the same.
xv) Accordingly, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated
09.09.1995 to the respondent No.1 i.e State of Telangana represented
by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department about sending the file
to respondent No.3 i.e District Collector, Ranga Reddy district for
carrying out necessary corrections. Till today no such correction was
carried.
xvi) After condoning delay, on 16.08.1995, final orders were passed
by respondent No.2 to carry out the correction and direction was given
to respondent No.3 to implement the said orders. The same were not
complied with.
xvii) On 31.07.2018, a team of government officials along with a
demolition squad, two constables and with some unsocial elements
forcibly entered into the subject property (presently only Acs.64-00
guntas) claiming themselves to be the revenue officials. They started
damaging and destroying some of the properties and facades which
are movable properties kept for the purpose of shooting of movies etc.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
11
When their security guard intervened, the said persons informed him
that they are taking possession of the subject property and have
snatched his phone when the guard attempted to take pictures.
xviii) On coming to know the same, the petitioners instructed his
Manager and staff to look into the issue who in turn informed him that
the trespassers claimed that they are the government officials headed
by Tahsildar to erect a board.
xix) Thus, after almost 27 years, government erected board without
giving any notice to the petitioners.
xx) Way back in the year 1967 itself, the Tahsildar Hyderabad West
Taluk inspected the site along with revenue inspector, patwari and
reported that the entire area is like a hillock. There are four old wells
in bad condition. It appeared to him that previously wet cultivation
used to take place from the said wells and by the side of the wells, on
an elevated high place, there is a building which appears like a
summer resort and a cellar. There are dilapidated old houses and
garages. There is an approach road to the house in the subject property
and some culverts were also constructed here and there. The entire
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
12
land has a small boundary wall with 3 feet constructed by arrangement
of stones.
xxi) It is further observed that it is also a fact that Court of Wards
has taken over the property of the Nawab Sultan ul Mulk. The
settlement authorities have not properly prepared the plan and did not
show the buildings and the wells etc as required. The plan of subject
property shows as if there are no houses and trees in the land and
whereas on site, the above structures mentioned were present etc.,
xxii) Thus, the present Tahsildar cannot turn around and give a
different version i.e the land originally belonged to Sarf-e-khas i.e the
personal lands of Nizams but not crown lands. Sarf-e-khas records
revealed that Khata No.13 was given to Ms. De Costa in the year 1336
Fasli for an upset price which was implemented in the Faisal Patti.
xxiii) Thus the observations of the present Tahsildar are contrary to
the proposal/report No.A1/5273/67 dated 23.10.1967.
xxiv) In view of the said discrepancy, the record remained discrepant
giving two different versions. Therefore, Tahsildar arrived at two
aspects i.e. i) This land could be patta land and after revision it was
declared as government, mentioned as Kancha Takrari, ii) it is a
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
13
government land, the applicant is in possession since many years even
prior to integration of Jagirs. Tahsildar opined that in his view, the
second aspect seems to be clearer.
xxv) While considering both aspects, either way according to
Tahsildar, the benefit of either aspect would go to the applicant. If the
first version was accepted, then the settlement error has to be rectified
and if second version is accepted i.e considering it to be government
land, because of long standing possession of the applicant, the land
has to be made patta in accordance with circular No.2. Therefore,
Tahsildar wrote to RDO West Division to consider the request of the
applicant for patta.
xxvi) Respondents did not consider the request of the applicant for
correction of record and patta despite reminders and regular
persuasion for over a period of 50 years. In the 51st year, respondents
cannot come and disturb the possession of the petitioner and others
over the subject property. They have erected board stating the subject
property belongs to the government. Thus, there is illegal interference
by the respondents of possession of the petitioners in the subject
property.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
14
B) W.P.No.40374 of 2022:-
xxvii) As discussed supra, this Writ Petition is also filed by Raunaq
Yar Khan challenging the proceedings No.A3/84/2022 dated
08.08.2022 issued by respondent No.5 District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District.
xxviii) Reiterating the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner further
contended as follows;
i) He has filed W.P.No.28635 of 2018 to declare the action of
respondents therein/revenue officials from interfering with his
possession over subject property illegally.
ii) Vide order dated 16.08.2018, this Court observed that having
regard to the order passed earlier and in view of the rival claims
with regard to the possession, directed both the parties to
maintain status quo in all aspects and any violation of the order
shall be viewed seriously.
iii) Respondents 15 to 57 submitted a representation dated
27.08.2021 to the Commissioner, SSLR, Hyderabad with a
request to conduct an enquiry and to implement Muntakhab
No.9 dated 16.10.1950 in terms of orders in W.P.No.8130 of
2002. The same was not considered, therefore they have filed a
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
15
Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 29387 of 2021 and this Court vide
order dated 03.12.2021 disposed of the said representation to
the Commissioner, SSLR to consider the representation dated
27.08.2021, documents submitted along with the said
representations and pass necessary orders in accordance with
law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
date of copy of receipt of the said order.
iv) By the date of submission of the said representation dated
27.08.2021 and order dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387 of
2021, petitioner herein has already filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated
16.08.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo in all
aspects and any violation of the order shall be viewed seriously.
v) The said Writ petition is pending and the said interim order is
subsisting. Even then, respondents 15 to 57 submitted the said
representation and obtained order dated 03.12.2021 behind the
back of the petitioners and others.
vi) Thereafter, in compliance with the said order, District Collector,
Ranga Reddy vide proceedings No. A3/84/2022 dated
08.08.2022 permitted to correct the settlement record i.e.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
16
Sethwar to the extent of Ac.52-20 guntas with Survey No.63/2
out of total area of Ac.77-34gts in Sy.No.63 (old Sy.No13)
situated in Guttala Begumpet in favour of legal heirs of
Muntakhab No.9 holder Sri. Khaja Kareemullah Khan S/o
Khaja Ahmedullah Khan.
vii) District Collector is a party to W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and
learned Advocate General appeared on his behalf. In his
presence only, vide order dated 16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635
of 2018, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo,
any violation shall be viewed seriously. Therefore, the
proceedings dated 08.08.2022 of District Collector is in
violation of the said order and also in violation of principles of
natural justice as the said orders were passed without putting
the petitioner on notice.
viii) There are two suits vide O.S.No.10 of 1962 filed by
Smt.Nawab Begum, the widow of Late Sultan ul Mulk
seeking partition was decreed, and O.S.No.46 of 1965 filed by
the Legal Representatives of Waliud Dowla for partition of the
estate of Sir Vikar ul Umra was also decreed.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
17
ix) In view of the findings of the said judgements and decrees, the
entry in Khasra Pahani that the subject land as KanchaTakrari
has no semblance of any title and claim of government. The
same is also contrary to the finding of the report of Tahsildar
dated 23.10.1967.
x) Therefore, the proceedings A3/84/2022 date 08.08.2022 of
District Collector, Ranga Reddy and all consequential
proceedings are illegal.
C) W.P.No. 38277 of 2022 and W.P.No.2151 of 2022:-
i. Petitioners are brother and sisters of petitioners in the aforesaid
two Writ petitions. The petitioners filed the present Writ
Petitions challenging the proceedings dated 10.08.2022 in File
No.E1/1042/2022 and proceedings date 08.08.2022 almost on
the grounds and contentions raised in the aforesaid two writ
petitions.
6. With the aforesaid grounds and contentions, the petitioners in
all the aforesaid petitions, sought to declare proceedings dated
08.08.2022 and 10.08.2022, all consequential proceedings as illegal
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch18
and also a direction to official respondents not to interfere with their
possession over the subject property.
CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS/COUNTER
OF TAHSILDAR, SERILINGAMPALLY:-
7. Tahsildar, Serlingampally filed counter on his behalf and on
behalf of District Collector, Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy
District, RDO Rajendranagar Division and contended as follows:
i) Petitioners suppressed material facts and they have not
approached this Court with clean hands. Vide order in
W.A.No.468 of 1990, this Court directed restraining the writ
petitioners from alienating the property in any manner and the
said order does not amount to acceptance of any claim to
possession by the writ petitioners.
ii) Petitioners and their predecessors in title failed to produce any
documentary evidence to establish their title and ownership
over the subject property.
iii) They have repeatedly stated that the records are not available
due to passage of time. They do not have title. There is no cause
of action.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
19
iv) Respondent No.5 has rightfully acted in issuing proceedings
dated 08.08.2022 and proceedings dated 10.08.2022 in
compliance with order dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387 of
2021.
v) As per Sethwar of 1942 A.D (1352 F), the said land was found
recorded as Kancha Takrari (Disputed land) and as per Sethwar
of 1952 it was recorded as Kancha Sarkari (Government Land).
vi) On one side, Late Lateefunissa Begum, petitioners’ mother had
been litigating under the guise of correction of survey error
from Kancha Sarkari to patta and on the other side, Muntakhab
holders have been claiming the said land as their own, as self-
purchased under Muntakhab No.9 of 1950 dated 16.10.1950
issued by the Nizam-e-Atiyat, Government of Hyderabad.
vii) As per order dated 23.03.1994, the Commissioner, SSLR,
Hyderabad in File No. P5/405/90, the village Guttala Begumpet
was a Sarf-e-khas village and was under the administrative
control of Sarf-e-khas authorities. The village has been merged
into Dewani in the year 1949. The history of the said village
and facts related to the land Sy.No.63 were specifically
mentioned in the proceedings dated 23.03.1994. The village
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
20
was originally surveyed in 1339F (1929AD) and revision
survey was announced in 1351F (1941AD).
viii) As per order dated 23.02.1994, in the year 1336F (1926AD) i.e
prior to commencement and announcement of the revision
survey, one Ms. De Costa, applied for grant of patta in view of
her continuous possession and enjoyment of old Sy.No13 (New
Sy.No.63) for an area of Acs.78-37gts in Guttala Begumpet.
The Sarf-e-khas authorities granted patta to Ms. De Costa to an
extent of 30 bigas only i.e 22 and half acres for an amount of
Rs.109-11-2 and the said authorities recorded the said land as
Laon Izafa in Faisal Patti of 1336F.
ix) In turn, Miss De Costa stated to have sold the assigned land to
Nawab Sultan ul Mulk.
x) The mother of petitioners Smt. Lateefunissa Begum was also in
possession of the land from 1961 onwards. The said land was
found recorded as Kancha Takrari in the Sethwar of 1941.
xi) Ms. De Costa executed sale deed 12th Khurdad 1345F bearing
document No. 423/1345 in favour of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk S/o
Late Nawab Sir Vikar ul Umra, grandfather of Late
Lateefunissa Begum for Acs.2-20gts and another sale deed
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
21
dated 25thKhurdad 1345F bearing document No.518 in favour
of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk for Acs.5-00 guntas with reference to
the subject property.
xii) After the death of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk, his mother,
Jahanderunissa Begum, took over the estate under Court of
Wards Act 1350F with effect from 05.08.1950 which was
notified on 07.11.1953 vide notification No.61/A2/124/53
stating that supervision of estate of Jahanderunissa Begum by
Court of Ward was withdrawn and always to have been
withdrawn with effect from 16.03.1955 in favour of heirs
namely Adbul Fateh Khan and 7 others. It is also evident from
G.O.Ms. No. 341 revenue dated 17.02.1959.
xiii) Smt. Nawab Begum W/o Nawab Sultan ul Mulk for
administration of the estates of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk, Lady
Vicar and Laiqatunnisa Begum has filed a suit vide O.S.No.10
of 1962 for distribution of properties and income, rendition of
accounts, delivery of property allotted to the plaintiffs share,
sale for the purpose of distribution etc. A preliminary decree
was passed on 31.12.1963 by learned Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court Hyderabad. Receiver was appointed to
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
22
administer their estate and to partition by metes and bounds
etc.,
xiv) A final decree was also passed on 09.02.1965 in
I.A.No.469/1962 in O.S.No.10 of 1962. Land of Guttala
Begumpet was item No.8 annexed to the final decree. Extent
and valuation was not mentioned.
xv) A sale deed bearing document No.1050 of 1965 was
executed by Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung (father of
Lateefunissa Begum) and 12 others (LRs of Sultan ul Mulk)
in favour of Lateefunissa Begum, mother of the petitioners
in respect of Acs25-00gts in survey No.63 of Guttala
Begumpet.
xvi) In view of preliminary decree, the receiver alone is entitled
to sell and execute the sale deed. Therefore, the sale deed is
contrary to the preliminary decree.
xvii) The Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, issued notices
bearing No. C-2/349/67 dated 23.03.1967 under the Land
Encroachment Act 1905 to Smt. Lateefunissa Begum. Even
then, Tahsildar sent proposals for patta to RDO under
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
23
Circular No.2 vide letter No.A1/52/73/67. The said circular
does not have any application.
xviii) The report of Tahsildar dated 23.10.2967 would reveal the
said fact.
xix) Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung executed another bogus gift
deed bearing document No.657/1969, dated 14.10.1969 in
favour of his daughter Lateefunnissa Begum, in respect of
land admeasuring Ac.78.37 guntas in Sy.No.63 of Guttala
Begumpet village, including Ac.25.00 of land purportedly
sold under sale deed dated 08.11.1965 bearing document
No.1050/1965 executed by Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung,
himself with 12 others.
xx) Lateefunnisa Begum, in turn, created another fraudulent gift
deed bearing document No.910/1971 dated 31.03.1971 in
favour of her husband and her four children including the
petitioners. They were created for the purpose of proposal
sent by the Tahsidlar.
xxi) After creating the gift deeds, Smt. Lateefunnisa Begum, filed
an application under Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act,
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
24
1317 Fasli for rectification of alleged settlement error with
regard to Sy.No.63 of Guttala Begumpet village.
xxii) DRO, Hyderabad took up the matter, vide order 04.05.1971
held that Sarf-e-khas authorities assigned only an extent of
30 bigas to one Ms. De Costa, predecessor in title of the
petitioners. Laon Izafa was sanctioned in her favour.
xxiii) The appeal filed by Lateefunnisa Begum, against order dated
04.05.1971 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide
order dated 13.07.1974.
xxiv) Mohd. Basheerudduin Khan, filed a suit O.S.No.47/1967 for
partition against Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung, father of
Lateefunnisa Begum, Item No.2 of Schedule-II of the plaint
i.e. land admeasuring Ac.12.38 guntas in Guttala Begumpet
village.
xxv) The said suit was decreed partly and dismissed in respect of
the said property.
xxvi) Appeal filed vide CCCA.No.94 of 1980 filed against the said
judgment and decree was dismissed on 13.06.1995.
xxvii) After the order dated 04.05.1971 of DRO confirmed by
Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.07.1974, Smt.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
25
Lateefunnisa Begum, filed a suit vide O.S.No.130 of 1982
for rectification of Column No.13 of Kasra pahani and for
perpetual injunction. Thereafter, she withdrew the said suit.
xxviii) She has also filed an appeal against the order of Joint
Collector, dated 05.12.1989 before the Commissioner,
SSLR, Hyderabad, by misrepresentation of the facts.
xxix) On remand, Joint Collector Ranga Reddy, submitted his
proposals dated 30.01.1994 addressed to the Commissioner,
SSLR, for correction of settlement in respect of land
admeasuring Ac.22.20guntas.
xxx) Vide order dated 05.08.1985, Commissioner recorded
sanction of condonation of delay.
xxxi) In view of dismissal of suit in respect of land in Guttala
Begumpet, which was confirmed in appeal, the petitioners
cannot claim any title in respect of land in Guttala
Begumpet.
xxxii) Thereafter, Government vide G.O.Ms.No.943, dated
20.09.1989 proposed for alienation of land admeasuring
Ac.63.07guntas in Sy.No.63 of Guttala Begumpet village, in
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
26
favour of Telugu University on free of cost and the same
was set aside by this Court vide order dated 12.02.1990 in
W.P.No.15487 of 1989.
xxxiii) Pursuant to order of Division Bench in W.A.No.468 of 1990,
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy took up the matter and
dropped the proposals for alienation in favour of Telugu
University.
xxxiv) Vide order dated 11.09.2002 in W.P.No.8310 of 2002, this
Court directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to
complete the enquiry duly implementing Muntakhab No.9.
xxxv) In compliance with the said orders, the MRO,
Serilingampalli, submitted a detailed report dated
18.09.2002 through RDO Chevella Division with a request
to examine the matter.
xxxvi) In view of the orders passed by Commissioner, SSLR, dated
23.03.1994, the claim of petitioners family is only to
Ac.22.20 guntas and the same has been admitted by the
petitioner in W.P.No.40374 of 2022 and W.P.No.28635 of
2018 i.e. Raunaq Yar Khan in paragraph No.5 of the writ
affidavit in W.P.No.28635 of 2018.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
27
xxxvii) Subsequent action for correction of survey error under
section 87 of the 1317F, was in process, consequent on
orders of the Commissioner, SSLR, dated 23.03.1994 and
16.08.1995. In the meanwhile, legal heirs of Muntakhab
Holder No.9 of 1950, dated 16.10.1950 filed W.P.No.29387
of 2021 seeking a direction to the District Collector to
consider representation dated 27.08.2021 and the same was
disposed of directing 2nd respondent to consider the said
representation, complete enquiry within a period of three
months.
xxxviii) In compliance with the said order, necessary enquiry has
been conducted by the Girdawar, Mandal Surveyor of
Serilingampalli Mandal duly inspecting the spot to ascertain
the extent etc. They have submitted a report stating as
follows:-
a) Area covered by encroachment: Ac. 3.37 guntas,
b) Proposed area (Muntakhab area): Ac.52.20 guntas,
c) Balance area covered by other claimants; Ac.22.20 guntas,
______________
Total admeasuring Ac.78.37 gutnas.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
28
xxxix) On considering the same, respondent No.8 i.e. MRO
Serilingampalli submitted a report dated 18.04.2022, to the
District Collector, through RDO, who in turn, forwarded the
same to the District Collector, who in turn, referred the
matter to the CCLA.
xl) CCLA in turn, vide proceedings dated 20.05.2022 requested
the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to thoroughly enquire,
take necessary action as per the existing provisions of law.
xli) On making a request for taking necessary action for
correction of survey error under Section 87 of AP (A) LR
Act, by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy vide his letter
dated 27.06.2022, Commissioner and Director, SSLR, vide
letter dated 30.07.2022 informed the District Collector, may
at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical
error admitted by the party concerned.
xlii) Vide G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 15.05.1976 Government
delegated powers to the Settlement Commissioner, and
CCLA, under Section 87 of AP (TA) LR Act, vide
proceedings dated 24.02.1999. Therefore, Commissioner is
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
29
the competent authority to condone the delay in filing of
application for correction of error in settlement records.
xliii) The Commissioner and Director, SSLR, has condoned the
delay in filing application and directed the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District to take action under Section 87 of the
AP (TA) LR Act, in respect of land in Sy.No.63 of Guttala
Begumpet Village, by strictly following the Rules and
Procedures prescribed by CCLA and the Chief Secretary
Circular No.S1/1033/2011, dated 18.05.2011.
xliv) In pursuance of the said permission, District Collector,
Ranga Reddy, vide proceedings dated 08.08.2022 accorded
permission to correct the records i.e. Sethwar, tippon, sub
division regarding Sy.No.63 admeasuring Ac.52.20 gutnas
situated at Guttala Begumpet village, in favour of legal heirs
of Muntakhab No.9 holder, i.e. Sri Khaja Kareemullah
Khan.
xlv) The Assistant Director, SSLR, Ranga Reddy District has
issued supplementary Sethwar by sub-dividing the land in
Sy.No.63 as 63/1 admeasuring Ac.25.14 gutnas classified as
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
30
Sarkari, Sy.No.63/2 admeasuring Ac.52.20 guntas as patta in
the name of Khaja Kareemullah Khan.
xlvi) Thereafter, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy vide
proceedings No.10.8.2022 addressed to the Commissioner
and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Telangana,
recommended for amendment of entries by de-notifying the
land admeasuring Ac.52.20 guntas in Sy.No.63/2 situated at
Guttala Begumpet from the list of prohibitory properties
under Section 22-A of Stamps and Registration Act, with a
request to issue necessary instructions to him.
xlvii) As per instructions issued by Commissioner and Inspector
General, Registration and Stamps, dated 19.08.2022, the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy, amended the entries as
survey No.63/1 to an extent of Ac.25.14 gutnas, as Sarkari,
and Sy.No.63/2 to an extent of Ac.52.20 guntas has been
deleted from the prohibitory properties list vide memo dated
26.08.2022.
xlviii) Implementation of Muntakhab is a ministerial act which
requires verification with regard to the authenticity of the
said Muntakhab. Therefore, District Collector, vide letter
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
31
dated 04.08.2015 directed State Archives for verification of
the authenticity of the Muntakhab and a Director of State
Archives vide his letter dated 07.08.2015 informed that the
said Muntakhab No.9 is traced out and furnished certified
copy of the same which is in Urdu. District Collector
obtained translation of the same. Therefore, there is no error
in the impugned proceedings.
xlix) Petitioners have no locus to file the present writ petitions.
l) The judgment in O.S.No.130 of 1982 operates as res
judicata.
With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos. 15 to 57 IN
W.P.NO.40374 OF 2022 (UNOFFICIAL RESPONDENTS)
i) Petitioners in all the writ petitions are guilty of suppressio
veri and suggestio falsi.
ii) There is suppression of facts and the petitioners approached
this Court with unclean hands.
iii) Enquiry into the title by Commission and report as per
Farmaan. The subject property belongs to Khaza
Kareemullah Khan.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
32
iv) One Rafiuddin Maghrabi claiming under gift deed dated 1st
Shaban 1315 Hijri from Zeenathunnissa Begum (paternal
aunt of Khaza Kareemullah Khan) submitted a claim to HEH
Nizam who in turn, under Farmaan dated 7th Zeeqad 1347 H
(1927AD) ordered for enquiry by a commission headed by
Mir Liaq Ali, Prime Minister and other Ministers and further
ordered that land of Begumpet Paigah area and the Makthas
Hammeedullah Nagar etc., be kept under the possession of
the Revenue Department, as usual. The parties were asked to
submit their claim of whatsoever in Atiyat Department.
After obtaining complete proof and refutation, their claim be
decided.
v) In compliance to the said Farmaan, commission submitted
its report dated 25th Shaban- Ul-Moazzam 1367H (1357
Fasli = 1347AD).
vi) After necessary enquiry, Nizam Atiyat and AAC opined that
a Maaruza (request) be submitted to HEH to get the sanction
about the transfer of Makhta land Begumpet Kalan as a gift
(Hiba) in the name of Lady Vicar ul umra. In such case, the
said maktha will be entitled to be continued in her name etc.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
33
vii) Gift by Zeenathunnissa Begum is not valid beyond her
lifetime.
viii) Muntakhab was issued as per the note approved by the then
Chief Minister basing on the report of the Commission and
recommendation of Revenue Minister.
ix) Chief Minister issued Muntakhab No.9 in File No.16/56,
dated 16.10.1950 in exercise of his sovereign power.
x) Implementation of Muntakhab is pending with the District
Collector and it is purely a ministerial act on the part of the
District Collector.
xi) Col. G.E.Cox, claiming himself as legal heir of Dr.Miss De
Costa submitted a claim with Tahsildar Hyderabad West, and
therefore, the implementation of Muntakhab was kept pending.
xii) Vide order dated 09.07.1958, Board of Governors, held that
Nazim Atiyat has not passed any order prejudicial to the
interest of the appellants and that they are at liberty to
approach the Collector to get their land demarcated.
Accordingly, Muntakhab holders filed several petitions before
the District Collector for implementation.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
34
xiii) Despite repeated requests and constant persuasion, the said
Muntakhab was not implemented.
xiv) Respondent Nos.15 to 57 filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.8130 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondents
therein to complete the enquiry in respect of Hammedullah
Nagar and Begumpet Khurd duly implementing Muinthakab
No.9.
xv) Vide order dated 11.09.2002, the said writ petition was
disposed of directing Commissioner, SSLR, and the District
Collector to complete the enquiry and pass orders in
accordance with law by putting the petitioners therein on
notice and affording them an opportunity.
xvi) In compliance with the said order, District Collector called for
the report from RDO, Tahsildar etc., and vide letter dated
08.05.2008 sought report from Assistant Director, SSLR, who
in turn submitted report dated 23.05.2008.
xvii) Vide letter dated 04.08.2015, District Collector requested
Director of State Achieves to furnish certified copies of
Muntakhab No.9 and the same were furnished and the same are
in Urdu. District Collector perused the translated copy.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
35
xviii) Respondent Nos.15 to 57 submitted representation dated
27.08.2021 to the District collector and others, to conduct
enquiry and implement Muntakhab No.9. The same was not
considered.
xix) Therefore, they have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.29387 of
2021. Vide order dated 03.12.2021, the said writ petition was
disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the
representation dated 27.08.2021 for correction of survey error,
completion of enquiry within a period three months.
xx) In compliance with said order, District Collector called report
from RDO, Tahsildar. CCLA vide his letter dated 20.05.2022
directed the District Collector, to thoroughly enquire into the
matter and take necessary action as per existing rule position
and in terms of Section 87 of 1317F.
xxi) Vide proceedings dated 23.05.2024, Assistant Director issued
notice to respondent Nos.15 to 57 fixing the date of hearing for
correction of records.
xxii) Assistant Director, Mandal Surveyor conducted survey,
demarcated the land, prepared a sketch on 14.06.2022. A
panchanama was also conducted and details of land
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
36
admeasuring Ac.78.37 guntas situated at Guttala Begumpet
were also mentioned.
xxiii) Vide proceedings dated 22.06.2022 District Collector
recommended for correction of settlement error. Vide letter
dated 22.07.2022, Commissioner sought clarification from
District Collector who in turn, clarified the same vide his letter
dated 23.07.2022.
xxiv) Vide proceedings dated 30.07.2022, Commissioner on
examination of entire record, condoning the delay, permitted
the District Collector to issue necessary proceedings under
Section 87 of 1317F in respect of land in subject property.
xxv) Thereafter, District Collector passed orders dated 08.08.2022
permitting to correct the settlement record.
xxvi) Vide letter dated 10.08.2022, District Collector requested the
Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps
for amendment of entries by de-notifying from the prohibitory
lists under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in respect of
subject property who in turn vide memo dated 19.08.2022
requested the District Registrar RR District, to take necessary
action.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
37
xxvii) Vide memo dated 26.08.2022 Disrtrict Registrar, RR District
amended prohibitory Register.
xxviii) Raunaq Yar Khan filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.36693 of
2022 challenging the letter dated 10.08.2022 and consequential
proceedings. Thereafter, sought permission to withdraw the
said writ petition and therefore the same was dismissed as
withdrawn.
xxix) Thereafter, petitioners filed the present writ petitions by
suppression of facts.
xxx) Tahsildar issued land encroachment notice and even then, sent
proposals to the contrary.
xxxi) The DRO Ranga Reddy dismissed application filed by
Lateefunnissa Begum for mutation of her name in revenue
record and Board of Revenue dismissed her appeal. She has
filed a suit vide O.S.No.130 of 1982 seeking rectification of
column No.13 of khasra pahani and for perpetual injunction.
The same was withdrawn.
xxxii) Writ petitions are no way effected by impugned orders.
xxxiii) The pleadings of petitioners are inconsistent and self-
destructive.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
38
With the said submissions respondent Nos.15 to 57 sought to dismiss
all the aforesaid writ petitions.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:-
9. The Points that arose for consideration in the present writ
petitions are as follows:-
1. Whether the impugned orders File No.F1/1171/2022 dated
30.07.2022, File No.A3/84/2022 dated 08.08.2022 and
10.08.2022, Memo No.8077/2022 dated 19.08.2022 passed by
the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 require any interference by this
Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
2. Whether a person in possession can be dispossessed except in
accordance with law?
3. Can this Court adjudicate the title of the subject property?
4. To what relief?
POINTS 1 TO 3:
10. To decide the aforesaid issues, it is relevant to extract the
definition of Muntakhab, Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Land Revenue Act 1317F, and Section 22-A of the Registration Act
and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the same
are relevant and extracted below:-
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch39
Section 87 of the LR Act:-
Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errors admitted by
all parties and application for correction of name to be made within
two years:-
The Director of settlements and on making over the
settlement records to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time,
correct or cause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted
by the party concerned.
The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications made within
two years after the introduction of the settlement, for the correction
of any wrong entry of a after the pattadar’s name in the register
referred to in the proceeding section and if satisfied about the error
whether such error has been made through negligence, fraud or
collusion shall correct the same, not withstanding that the party
concerned does not admit the error but not such application shall
be entertained after two years, unless reasonable cause is shown to
the said officer for the delay, and in such cases, if any error is
proved, it shall not be corrected without obtaining the sanction of
the Government.
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908: Documents
Registration of which is opposed to Public Policy:-(1) The State Government may, by notifications in the Official
Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class
of documents is opposed to public policy.
(2) Not withstanding anything in this Act, the registering officer
shall refuse to register any document to which a notification
issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.
300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority
of law:-
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of
law.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch40
MUNTAKHAB:-
11. Section 2 (c) of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952
defines Muntakhabs and Vasiqas as follows:-
“Muntakhabs and Vasiqas” means documents issued by competent
authorities as a result of inam or succession inquiries held under the Dastoor
Amal Inams or other Government orders on the subject and issued by way
of continuance or confirmation of Atiyat grants.
12. Muntakhab is Certificate of Grant issued by the
Commissioner of Inam, Revenue Department. Muntakhab covered
the area of Aurangabad, Berar,. Bijapur and Khandesh, Hyderabad and
Bidar Subas. They were transferred to Daftar- i- Diwani in 1925
during the period of Salar Jung-I. The rules and regulations were
framed and investigation in regards to nature of grants, like jagir, inam
lands, watan deshmukhi and rusum (fees) and to their validity and the
legitimacy of the claims of the grantees started. All muntakhabs grants
comprise of mansab, yaumiya – i- naqdi, Inam, maash and madad -i –
mash etc.
13. Muntakhab (in Arabic) an abstract of the documents, in the
older survey records system being a list of names, with the numbers of
the fields held by each. (p.844 in The Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha
Aiyar, Reprint Edition 1993).
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch41
14. In Public Information Officer/Joint Secy. to Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration v. A.P. Information
Commissioner 1, the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with definition and relevance of
Muntakhab and observed that Muntakhab is essentially a document
with list of names with numbers of fields held by original grantee or
his successors. A certificate issued by competent authority
recognizing ‘succession forms part of Muntakhab and some times by
itself is a Muntakhab. A Muntakhab declaring the rights of successors
and delineating respective shares of such successors is an
order/judgment in rem.
15. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the
petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions are claiming right over the
subject property contending that it is their ancestral property.
Whereas, the respondent Nos.15 to 57 are claiming right over the
subject property contending that they are the legal heirs of Sri Khaja
Kareemullah Khan, holder of Muntakhab No.9 dated 16.10.1950. The
1
. 2008 SCC OnLine AP 721
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch42
impugned proceedings are issued in terms of Section 87 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli.
16. Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.28635 of 2018; Mr. Omar A. Pasha, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.40374 of 2022, Mr. A.
Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Pratap,
learned counsel for the petitioner in both W.P.No.38277 of 2022 and
W.P.No.2151 of 2022 and Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel
for unofficial respondents 15 to 17 and learned Government pleader
for Revenue, made their submissions extensively basing on the
aforesaid pleadings.
17. The aforesaid stated rival submissions would reveal that the
subject property has chequered history. Several proceedings were
issued by revenue authorities. Three suits and appeals were also filed.
Three writ petitions and one intra-court appeal were filed earlier to the
present writ petitions with regard to the subject property.
18. As discussed supra, the challenge is to the impugned
proceedings issued in terms of Section 87 of the Act 1317F and
consequential proceedings, therefore, referring to the aforesaid
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch43
proceedings, judgments and decrees, orders in writ petitions and writ
appeal in detail is not necessary.
19. EARLIER PROCEEDINGS:-
1. O.S.No.10 of 1962:
Smt. Nawab Begum W/o. N. Sultan-Ul-Mulk, Ladigvikar and
Laiqunnissa Begum, filed the said suit for distribution of properties,
income, rendition of accounts, delivery of property allotted to the
plaintiffs’ share and sale for the purpose of distribution etc. A
preliminary decree was passed on 31.12.1963 by the learned
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and a Receiver
was appointed to administer their estate and to partition by metes and
bounds etc. A final decree was also passed on 09.02.1965, I.A.No.469
of 1965 in O.S.No.10/1962. The land in Guttala Begumpet was
mentioned as item No.8 annexed to the said final decree.
2. O.S.No.47 of 1967:-
Mohd. Basheeruddin Khan, filed the said suit for partition
against the Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung, in respect of item No.2 of
Schedule -2 of the plaint i.e. land admeasuring Ac.12.38guntas in
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch44
Guttala Begumpet Village. The said suit was decreed partly and
dismissed in respect of the property in Guttala Begumpet.
3. Appeals:-
The appeals filed challenging the said judgment and decree
including CCCA No.94 of 1980 were dismissed on 13.06.1965.
4. O.S.No. 130 of 1982:-
This suit was filed by Smt. Lateefunnisa Begum, seeking
correction of column No.13 of pahani and it was dismissed as
withdrawn..
5. W.P.No.8130 of 2002:-
It was filed by legal heirs of Muntakhab holder i.e. unofficial
respondent Nos.15 to 57 seeking a direction to the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District to complete the enquiry duly implementing
Muntakhab No.9 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2002
directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy and others to complete
the enquiry for implementation of Muntakhab No.9.
6. W.P.No.29387 of 2021:-
This writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of Muntakhab holder
No.9 i.e. Respondent Nos.15 to 57 seeking a direction to the District
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch45
Collector, CCLA and others to consider their representation dated
27.08.2021 submitted by them seeking correction of survey error and
completion of enquiry. Vide order dated 03.12.2021, this Court
disposed of the said writ petition directing the District Collector and
others to consider the said representation and pass orders in
accordance with law within a period of three months.
20. PROPOSAL OF TAHSILDAR, HYDERABAD WEST
TALUK, DATED 23.10.1969.
i. The proposals of Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, vide
proceedings No.A1/5273/67/dated 23.10.1967 were submitted
to the RDO Hyderabad West Division.
ii. On a petition filed by Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum on 19.09.1967
under Circular No.2 of the Revenue Department, Tahsildar,
Hyderabad West Taluk, conduced enquiry.
iii. In paragraph No.12 of the said proposal, he has stated that on
receipt of the petition from Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum, he along
with revenue Inspector, Patwari and representative of the
applicant and Advocate of the applicant inspected the site and
found that the subject property is just on the border of
Yousufguda and Shaikpet Villages. Almost the entire area is
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
46
just like a hillock. There is practically very negligible area,
which could be utilized for cultivation. There are four old wells
which are not in good condition. It appeared that previously wet
cultivation used to take place from these wells. Just by the side
of the wells, on an elevated high place, there is a building which
appears like a summer resort and a cellar. There are some
dilapidated old houses and garages. There is an approach road
to this house in this land and some culverts were also
constructed by arranging stones.
iv. Guttala Begumpet is a Sarf-e-khas Village, which was a private
property of HEH Nizam. At the time of integration of Jagir, the
said village was taken over by the Government. Perusal of the
Sarf-e-khas records shows that there were only pattadars in the
said village i.e. 1. Ms. De Costa who was owning about 231
bigas, 2) Smt. Sardarunnisa Begum who was owning about 6
bigas. There were only 12 survey numbers in the entire village.
The said village was surveyed and announced in the year 1352F
(AD). After revision, instead of the said 12 survey numbers,
Sy.No.63 was formed with the extent of Ac.610.16 guntas.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
47
v. Perusal of the statement of records shows that Sy.Nos.62 and 63
were shown as ‘Kancha Takrari’. But these two survey numbers
were not arranged in a systematic way because last Sy.No. 61
ends near the village and these two survey numbers were given
on the border of the village. The same shows that there was
some doubt about this land due to which settlement people have
given numbers stating as Kancha Takrari. The land which the
applicant claims to be her own land is a non-cultivable rocky
land in which there are four wells, old house in the shape of a
big cells, dilapidated garages etc. There is also road leading to
the cell. It is also a fact that the Court of Wards has taken over
the property of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk, who owned a palace at
Yousufguda village which is about two to three miles and was
implemented in the Faisal Patti and 1336F which shows a) plot
No.13 admeasuring 30 bigas, a kancha which was being
auctioned every year for which Ms. De Costa had applied for
granting patta. After investigation by the Deputy Collector,
through Lr.No.251, dated 13.09.1336F in the average of 10
years, land revenue for an amount of Rs.109-11-2, this land was
granted patta. This ‘Sarah’ of Tahsildar was approved by Sri
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
48
Jafar Yar Jung, the then Deputy Collector. There were mango
trees which were being auctioned by the Court of Wards
authorities. The construction of structures, roads, culverts etc.,
also proved beyond doubt that late Sultan ul Mulk was in
possession and enjoyment of the subject property.
vi. It is not known why Sultan ul Mulk people kept quite when it is
declared as government land after announcement by the
Settlement Department. In the same way, it is not known why
the government kept quite when their property was taken over
and was under the management of the Court of Wards
authorities.
vii. The oral evidence of Col. Cox is very important, he deposed
that he had seen that land which subsequently got sold by Ms.
De Costa to late Sultan ul Mulk.
viii. As per the pleadings and documents filed and the oral evidence
adduced by Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum, the applicant, it shows
that the land once belonged to late HEH, the Nizam, it was
given to late Sultan ul Mulk and inherited by the applicant
therein.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
49
ix. Perusal of the government records shows that it is a Kancha
land which is in dispute. The latest record of 1952 and 1954
shows that Col.Cox was in possession of Sy.No.63 and he was
utilizing the grass. The record from 1961 onwards shows that
the applicant is in possession of this land. The Faisal Patti in the
year 1961 shows that Dhar – e – Khas levied on the applicant
from 1950 to 1961 amounting to Rs.246-72 to the extent of
Ac.2.00 stating that on this area, there are structures. The
record i.e. pahani does not reveal this position. The present
Patwari has no knowledge of this discrepancy. The previous
Patwari Sri Seetharama Rao died, due to which it was difficult
to trace the real position.
x. The Kawalkar has deposed that he has collected land revenue
from Sultan ul Mulk people who were in possession of the
subject property. This oral evidence goes to prove that the
applicant therein was in possession of the subject land.
xi. In the light of the said facts, there are two aspects of the case.
The first aspect is that this was a patta land but after revision, it
was declared as Government and mentioned as Kancha Takrari.
The second aspect is that it is a government land and the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
50
applicant is in possession since many years even prior to
integration of Jagirs.
xii. In his view, the second aspect seems to be more clear.
Whichever aspect is taken into consideration, it goes in favour
of the applicant. If the first version is accepted to be correct in
that case, the survey error has to be rectified. If the second
version were to be accepted, then, this land is to be made patta
in the name of applicant as per Circular No.2.
xiii. In view of the Circular No.2, as it is a Sarf-e-khas village
wherein the pattadar has been defined in Clause (II) of Section
2 as a person who is directly responsible to the Jagir for the
payment of land revenue whether this name has or has not been
entered as such in Jagir records and it includes a person who
was directly responsible to the Jagirdar for payment of land
revenue.
xiv. Circular No.2 clearly states as a result of the coming into force
of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation 1358F. The
administration of all Jagir areas has been taken over by the
Government. This Change has placed Jagir ryots on an equal
footing with the Diwani Ryots in all respects and it is the duty
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
51
of the District Officers to see that the Jagir ryots enjoy all the
rights to which they are entitled. The most important of this
right is the right to hold the land. The rules framed under the
Circular No.2 provide that all persons who hold Jagir lands and
pay land revenue directly to the Jagirdar, shall in all Jagirs
whether settled or unsettled, for all purposes be deemed to be
pattadars of the land held by them notwithstanding any oral or
written agreement between the Jagirdars and such persons or
any entry in the concerned village records to the contrary and
their rights and liabilities shall be the same as those of the
pattedars of Khalsa lands.
xv. In the light of the above orders considering that the applicant is
in possession of the land as contemplated under Circular No.2,
the applicant can rightly ask to treat her as pattedar. Now,
simply because the revenue records show that Sy.No.63 is a
Government land and the applicant is an encroacher, it is not
justifiable to evict her.
xvi. The Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, further observed that in
view of the pleadings, considering the oral evidence, documents
filed by the applicant, this property was once under the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
52
supervision of the Court of Wards, Guttala Begumpet village
was a Sarf-e-khas village, the longstanding possession of the
applicant, the petitioners grandfather constructed houses,
garages, roads etc. in the subject property and the oral evidence
of Col.Cox that Ms. De Costa purchased subject property and
sold to Sultan ul Mulk, and also other evidence, he was of the
opinion that the applicant can rightly ask to treat her as pattadar
of subject property as per Circular No.2.
21. With the said observations, he requested the RDO,
Hyderabad West Division to pass necessary orders for taking further
action.
22. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.943, dated 20.09.1989, the
Government accorded sanction to alienate the subject property in
favour of Telugu University.
23. The petitioners along with their mother filed W.P.No.15487
of 1989 challenging the said G.O. Vide order dated 11.12.1989, this
Court observed that several contentions were raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners in order to show that the petitioners are
lawful owners of the land and they have been in actual possession of
the same. The said contentions are denied in the counter affidavit. It is
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
53
not necessary to go into those contentions. The writ petition must
succeed on the question of violation of principles of natural justice. In
the impugned order, it is not in dispute that it has not been preceded
by notice to the petitioners. As far back as in 1967, the proceedings
under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, were initiated against the
petitioners in respect of the very same land. The Tahsildar, Hyderabad
West Taluk, vide order dated 23.10.1967 held that the petitioners were
not encroachers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are
nothing to do with the land in question. As the impugned orders were
issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is set
aside.
24. This Court also observed that the said order will not
preclude respondent authorities from issuing notice to the petitioners
and take action in accordance with law.
25. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the said Telugu
University preferred intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.468 of 1990.
Vide judgment dated 18.04.1990, the Division Bench dismissed the
said writ appeal observing as follows:-
In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in
directing a show cause notice to be issued to the writ
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch54
petitioners before assigning the land for other purposes. We
are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.943,
Revenue, dated 20.09.1989 insofar as it relates to the extent of
land which is subject matter of the writ petition and while the
writ petitioners are claiming title. However, in our view the
interest of the appellant will have to be safeguarded by
issuing a further order restraining the writ petitioners from
alienating the property in any manner whatsoever including
entering into agreement of sale etc., The nature of land shall
not also be altered. These directions however, do not amount
to acceptance of any claim to possession. The proceedings
before the Government as directed by the learned Single
Judge, shall be completed within four months from the date of
receipt of this order, after giving notice to the writ petitioners.
Subject to the above directions, writ appeal is dismissed. ”
26. Vide proceedings No.D1/12495/89, dated 21.09.1992, Joint
Collector, Ranga Reddy District dropped alienation proposals for the
present, pending decision, about the correction of entries by the
Commissioner, SSLR. As the matter is pending enquiry with the
Commissioner, SSLR, he observed that he did not intend to go into
merits and demerits of the case.
27. In the said order, it is mentioned that the petitioners were
proposed to be evicted as the land holder has dropped the proceedings
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
55
after the representation by the petitioners herein. There is litigation
over the subject property since 1967 and the matter is being agitated
by them at different Forums.
28. As per the records, the petitioners herein are interested in
the land and their application for correction of entries is pending with
the Commissioner, SSLR, it is appropriate to await outcome of the
decision of the Commissioner, before alienation. He has also further
observed that there is dispute regarding title of the land while
Government continues to treat it as government land and the
petitioners are claiming that it is their private property. The veracity
and truthfulness of which is required to be decided by the
Commissioner, SSLR. In view of the pendency of the case with him,
no additional information was placed before him.
29. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioners herein
and their mother had applied for correction of revenue entries on
16.05.1989 in continuation of their petition No.B1/6183/88 in respect
of subject property. The Joint Collector dismissed the said application
considering the alienation proposals vide G.O.Ms.No.943, dated
20.09.1989. Aggrieved by the said order of Joint Collector, the writ
petitioners and their mother preferred appeal before the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
56
Commissioner, SSLR, in File No.P5/405/1990 and the same was
pending.
30. It is also relevant to note that notices were issued to the
petitioners and their mother under Section 7 of the Land
Encroachment Act, in the years 1961 and 1981 to evict them from the
subject property. They have submitted explanation. Thereafter, the
said proceedings were dropped.
31. In the said order, it is also observed that the suit vide
O.S.No.47/65 is pending before the I Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad to which the Nizam is also a party, the
plaintiffs therein have disputed the title of Sultan ul Mulk, to the
properties at Guttala Begumpet. The disposal of the suit is likely to
clarify the issue as to the extent and distribution of the property
actually belongs to Sultan ul Mulk. It is, therefore, felt that decision in
O.S.No.47/65 be awaited for the reason that the issue is the
establishment of title of Sultan ul Mulk to the subject land and
determination of the extent thereof.
32. He has already considered report vide proceedings
No.A1/5273/67, dated 23.10.1967 of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West
Taluk, and observed that due to pendency of O.S.No.47/65, it would
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
57
be better to keep the proceedings pending the decision of the civil
Court as it would clarify the issue.
33. As discussed supra, the challenge in the present writ
petitions is to the impugned orders in File No.A3/84/2022, dated
08.08.2022 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said proceedings
were issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6 invoking power under Section
87 of 1317 F.
34. As per Section 87 of the said Act, Settlement Officer has
power to correct clerical and other errors admitted by all parties and
the application for correction of names to be made within two years.
Therefore, as per the said provision, the following are three important
aspects:-
1. It should be correction of clerical and other errors.
2. It should be admitted by all the parties.
3. Application shall be filed within two years.
35. In the present case, respondent Nos.15 to 57 are claiming to
be legal heirs of the original Muntakhab holder Mr. Khaja
Kareemullah Khan, sought for correction of errors in the Muntakhab
No.9, dated 16.10.1950. The petitioners are disputing the claim of the
respondent Nos.15 to 57. According to the petitioners, they are the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
58
owners of the subject property and it is their ancestral property.
Therefore, there is no admission of the said clerical error by the
petitioners herein.
36. As discussed supra, the application seeking correction of
clerical error or other errors shall be filed within two years. As
discussed supra, Muntakhab No.9 is dated 16.10.1950. Respondent
Nos.15 to 57 sought for correction of clerical error in the said
Muntakhab only on 01.04.1968 by way of submitting an application.
The same was not considered.
37. The mother of the petitioners Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum,
submitted an application before the Collector, Hyderabad West, under
Section 87 of 1317F for mutation of her name in the revenue records.
The DRO took up enquiry under Section 87 of the 1317F for
rectification of the settlement error in F.No.F3/6183/1968, dated
04.05.1971 stating that the decision in O.S.No.47/1965, a suit for
partition of properties, awaited supra.
38. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the mother of the
petitioner i.e. Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum preferred an appeal under
Section 158 of Act 1317F and the same was dismissed by the Joint
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
59
Collector, Ranga Reddy District on the ground of pendency of the
partition suit vide O.S.No.47/1965.
39. Perusal of the proceedings dated 16.08.1995 of the
Commissioner, SSLR, Hyderabad would reveal that the mother of the
petitioners i.e. Smt. Latheefunnissa Begum and others filed an appeal
petition dated 22.02.1990 before the Settlement Officer i.e. the
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, seeking correction of
settlement errors. Therefore, vide the said proceedings dated
16.08.1995, the Commissioner, SSLR, accorded permission under
Section 87 of the 1317F to the District Collector which a statutory
application permitting to correct the survey and settlement error which
is of more than two years after handing over the records to the
Settlement Officer (the District Collector) by the Survey Department
after revision survey. The Commissioner, SSLR was accorded
permission to correct error under Section 87(A) of the 1317F by
condoning the delay vide proceedings dated 05.08.1995. Therefore,
the Collector, Ranga Reddy District was requested to examine the
matter and take necessary action with reference to the facts of the case
and documentary evidence.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
60
40. It is also relevant to note that the respondent Nos.15 to 57
have also submitted an application dated 27.08.2021 to the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy, CCLA seeking correction of survey error and
completion of enquiry. The same was not considered. Therefore, they
have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.29387 of 2021. Vide order
dated 03.12.2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petition
directing the District Collector and others to consider the said
representation dated 27.08.2021 and pass orders in accordance with
law within a period of three months. Thus, respondent Nos.15 to 57
submitted an application only on 27.08.2021 seeking correction of
survey error. Thus, there is inordinate delay in submitting an
application seeking correction of error. There is no explanation much
less plausible explanation from respondent Nos.15 to 57 for the said
abnormal delay in seeking correction of clerical error.
41. As discussed supra, the word ‘shall’ is used in Section 87 of
the 1317 F. Therefore, respondent Nos.15 to 57 shall submit an
application seeking correction of errors within two years which they
have not submitted in the present case. However, respondent Nos.15
to 57 are contending that there is provision to condone the delay and
that the Commissioner, SSLR, condoned delay vide proceedings dated
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
61
05.08.1995 and accorded permission to correct errors. The
proceedings of the Commissioner, SSLR dated 05.08.1995 are
contrary to the language used in Section 87 of the 1317F.
LEGAL PRECEDENTS / JUDGEMENTS
42. It is relevant to note that with regard to condonation of
delay, the Apex Court laid certain parameters in Pathapati Subba
Reddy (died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2 and the
same are as follows:-
“On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as
aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an
end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right
itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for
a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period
of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach,
justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in
mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of
limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;2
. 2024 INSC 286
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
62
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay
if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient
cause is established for various factors such as, where there is
inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not
mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not
satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning
the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay
for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to
disregarding the statutory provision.”
43. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen 3, Sooraj Devi v. Pyare
Lal, 4 and Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi v. State of Gujarat 5, the
Apex Court held as follows:-
“26. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clerical
mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due to accidental
slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake or omission. In our
considered opinion, substituting different lands in place of the lands which
have been notified by a statutory notification under Sections 10(1), 10(3)3
. 1980 Supp SCC 627
4
. (1981) 1 SCC 500
5
. (2016) 4 SCC 531
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch63
and 10(5) [Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] cannot and
shall not be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory
requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is complied with. A
landholder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or
arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum.”
44. In Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum, 6 the
Apex Court had an occasion to consider the aspect of clerical errors in
terms of Section 87 of the 1317F and the relevant portion is extracted
herein.
“17. The relevant portions of the Circular dated 15-10-1994 are Paras
4 and 5 and they read as follows:
“Clarification : There is no time-limit for entertaining clerical
errors, and District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clerical
errors. The time-limit is prescribed only for errors other than clerical
errors. For rectification of errors other than clerical errors condonation
of delay is required, for which District Revenue Officer alone is
competent. However the District Revenue Officer is not competent to
carry out correction other than clerical errors without the approval of
the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records.
Clarification : Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli
does not provide definition of clerical errors and errors other than
clerical errors. The clerical errors are minor errors which do not
involve alteration in area, change of classification, or change of name
of the pattedar.
A few examples of errors, which come under the category of
clerical errors, are furnished below:
6
. (2018) 7 SCC 346
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch64
a. Name of the Pattedar misspelt.
b. Interchange of survey numbers.
c. Survey no. missing in the survey map.
d. Area is calculated wrongly though measurement on ground and
records support the correct area.
Since the definition of clerical error and errors other than clerical
errors is not there in the Act, it is not proper to leave it to the judgment
of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records whether particular
survey error falls under the category of clerical error or errors other
than clerical error. Therefore, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land
Records shall send detailed technical report to Director, Survey
Settlement and Land Records, regarding proposed error. This is purely
a technical and non-statutory function. The report so sent shall be
examined at Directorate whether the error falls under the category of
clerical error or error other than clerical error and the fact will be
communicated to Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records. On
obtaining clearance from the Directorate, the Assistant Director shall
send the file to District Revenue Officer to dispose of the case at
District Revenue Officers level under Section 87 of the Land Revenue
Act, if the error is a clerical error. If the error is other than clerical
error, the District Revenue Officer, shall send proposals to
Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records duly condoning
the delay as per rules for disposal of the case by Commissioner,
Survey, Settlement and Land Records, under Section 87-A of the Land
Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.”
45. As discussed supra, the implementation of Munthakab No. 9
of 1950, dated 16.10.1950 was cancelled far back in 1958.
Respondent Nos.15 to 57 failed to provide a clear identification of the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
65
land as no boundaries were specified. Thus, they failed to identify and
demarcate the relevant survey numbers and boundaries of the subject
property. Furthermore, they have suppressed reports of the 8th
respondent, who indicated that implementation of Muntakab No. 9
stands cancelled.
46. It is also relevant to note that in the report submitted by the
Tahsildar, Serilingampally, to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy
District, vide proceedings Lr.No.B/348/2002, dated 07.07.2015, there
is reference to the report No.B/348/2002, dated 18.09.2003 and that
page No.5 of the said report, it was mentioned that the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy, District has passed orders for cancellation of
implementation of Muntakhab No.9 on the ground that the Muntakhab
No.9 had not specified survey numbers or boundaries of the land
which had been confirmed as Inam. As such Mr. Khaja Munnawar Ali
Khan and others filed an appeal before Nazim-e-Atiyat who heard the
parties and held that the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, was right in
ordering the cancellation of entry of Inam right, however ordered that
the appellants are not barred from submitting an application to the
Collector for execution of the orders in Muntakhab No.9 showing the
Survey Numbers and boundaries of said Mash.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
66
47. In the present writ petition, the errors sought to correct by
respondent Nos.15 to 57 are not clerical errors. The power under
Section 87 of the 1317F is quasi judicial power and therefore, the
authority exercising the said power, has to consider the principles and
guidelines issued by the Apex Court. Therefore, the Commissioner,
SSLR, and the District Collector, have to consider the aforesaid three
aspects i.e. 1) clerical errors or any other errors 2) admission by all the
parties and 3) the same should be filed within two years, in terms of
Section 87 of the 1317F. In the present facts scenario, there is no
consideration of the said aspects.
48. Though there is no limitation to file a particular application,
it cannot be filed with abnormal delay and it should be filed within a
reasonable time by explaining the reasons for the said delay. In the
present case, there is no such explanation offered by respondent
Nos.15 to 57.
49. It is no longer res integra that where no time-limit is
specified, whatever is required to be done should be within a
reasonable period. In Collector v. D. Narsing 7, the Apex Court
considered its decision in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co.
7
. (2015) 3 SCC 695
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
67
Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur 8 about the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction where no time-limit is specified was considered and held
that summarize, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned
upon because perpetual exposure to challenges would lead to
avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, contrary to the
policy of law. Even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period for
such powers, significant delays can create third-party rights that
cannot be disregarded by the belated exercise of discretionary power,
particularly when no cogent explanation for the delay is provided. The
rule of law must align closely with the practicalities of life.
50. In Basanti Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board 9,
it was pointed out where third-party rights are likely to be affected, the
courts decline to interfere, but if there is a necessity to interfere, then
the aggrieved person should be heard on merits.
51. As discussed supra, Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan, filed a writ
petition vide W.P.No.28635 of 2018 to declare the action of
respondents in interfering with his possession and damaging the
8
. (1992) 2 SCC 598
9
. (2009) 6 SCC 791
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
68
subject property by erecting the board with caption “Government
Land” as illegal. This Court vide order dated 16.08.2018 directed the
parties to maintain status quo as on the said date in all respects. This
Court also made it clear that any violation of the order shall be viewed
seriously. Suppressing the said fact, respondent Nos.15 to 57
submitted a representation dated 27.08.2021 to the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District, CCLA with a request to correct the survey error
and complete enquiry and they filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.29387 of 2021 seeking a direction to the District Collector,
CCLA and others to consider the said representation dated 27.08.2021
and obtained an order dated 03.12.2021. Thus, they have suppressed
the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2018 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.28635 of 2018.
52. It is further stated that from the perusal of decision No.55,
dated 09.07.1958 in File No.3/87/54/Atiyat of Board of Revenue,
Andhra Pradesh, it is observed that Muntakab No.9 in respect of
Hameedullahnagar and Guttala Begumpet villages were implemented
by Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, in the name of Inamdars viz., Khaja
Munnawar Ali Khan and others.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
69
53. Aggrieved by the order of implementation of Munthakab
No. 9, Col. Cox filed an appeal before the Collector, Hyderabad
District stating that during the pendency of the Inam enquiry, the lands
in question were under the Government Custody and the Govt allotted
the subject property to One Mr. Col. Cox on patta, and that without
giving an opportunity to the Pattadar to submit his objection, the said
land was implemented in the name of Khaja Munnawar Ali Khan and
others.
54. On this, the Collector had passed orders for cancellation of
implementation of Muntakab No.9 on the ground that the Muntakab
had not specified the Survey numbers or boundaries of the land which
had been confirmed as Inam. Therefore, Khaja Munnawar Ali Khan
and others filed an appeal before the Nazim-e-Atiyat. The Nazim-e-
Atiyat, who heard the parties, decided that the Collector was right in
ordering the cancellation of entry of Inam right, however ordered that
the appellants are not debarred from submitting an application to the
Collector for execution of the orders in Muntakab No.9 showing the
survey numbers and boundaries of the said mash.
55. Aggrieved by the order of Nazim-e-Atiyat, Sri Khaja
Munnawar Ali Khan and others filed an appeal before the Board of
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
70
Revenue and prayed that the decisions of the Lower Courts be set
aside and Major Col.Cox be directed to pay the Revenue of the land to
them as decided earlier. On this, the Board of Revenue while
accepting the Lower Court orders, directed the appellants therein to
appear before the Collector and get their lands demarcated after
producing necessary evidence to establish the location and the
boundaries of the land.
56. The aforesaid facts, more particularly, reports of the
Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, Serilingampally Mandal, would
reveal that the petitioners and their predecessors – in – title are in
possession of the subject property. There is no admission of clerical
error by the petitioners as claimed by respondent Nos.15 to 57 which
is mandatory in terms of Section 87 of the Act 1317F. The said
application was not filed within a period of two years as required in
terms of Section 87 of the Act 1317F. The errors pointed out by
respondent Nos.15 to 57 are not clerical errors as claimed by them.
57. As discussed supra, respondent Nos.15 to 57 submitted
representation dated 27.08.2021 and filed writ petition vide
W.P.No.29387 of 2021 suppressing the order dated 16.08.2018 in
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
71
W.P.No.28635 of 2018. They have obtained an order dated 03.12.2021
in W.P.No.29387 of 2021 wherein this Court directed the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and others to consider the
representation dated 27.08.2021 and pass orders in accordance with
law within a period of three months and complete the enquiry by duly
implementing Muntakhab No.9.
58. Now, the official respondents are contending that in
compliance with the said order, Tahsildar, Serilingampally, submitted
a detailed report dated 18.09.2003 to the RDO, Serilingampally
Division, with a request to examine the matter and necessary enquiry
has been conducted by Girdavar, Mandal Surveyor, Serilingampally by
duly inspecting the land. They have submitted report stating that
Ac.3.37 guntas of land is covered by encroachment, Ac.52.20 guntas
of land is the proposed area (Muntakhab area) and Ac.22.20 guntas is
the balance land covered by other claims. The total land is Ac.78.37
guntas.
59. In report vide. Lr.No.B/348/2002 dated 18.09.2003 of
Tahsildar, Serilingampally, submitted to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, it is mentioned that
Nizam-e-Atiyat vide Lr.No.3507 dated 27.10.1950 in F.No.16/56,
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
72
Inam Medak of 1346 Fasli while communicating copies of Muntakhab
No.9, dated 16th Azur 1360 Fasli corresponding to 16.10.1950
informed that the Inam lands do not come under the purview of Jagir
Abolition and therefore, the lands of Hameedullah Nagar and
Begumpet Khurd as mentioned in Muntakhab which was under control
(Kabza) of Revenue Department be restored in favour of legal heirs of
Khaja Kareemullah Khan. It is further mentioned that the Collector,
Hyderabad District directed the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk to
implement Muntakhab No.9 in favour of the legal heirs of Khaja
Munnawar Ali Khan in the revenue records and to submit compliance
report vide Ref.No.6333, dated 07.11.1950 in File No.1/56 of 1354F in
F.No.16/56 Inam; Medak of 1346F.
60. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, Ms. De Costa is
claiming that the subject property was purchased by her from Sarf-e-
Khas authorities. She has executed a registered sale deed bearing
document No.423/1345F (1935) in favour of Nawab Sultan ul Mulk
Bahadur, grandfather of late Lateefunnissa Begum, mother of the
petitioners in respect of Ac.2.20 guntas and another registered sale
deed bearing document No.518 of 1345F dated 25th Khurdad 1345F
(1935) in favour of Sultan ul Mulk Bahadur, in respect of Ac.5.00
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
73
guntas situated in Sy.No.13 (new Sy.No.63) Guttala Begumpet
Village.
61. Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung executed another gift deed
bearing document No.657 of 1969 dated 14.10.1969 in favour of his
daughter Lateefunnissa Begum in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.78.37 guntas in Sy.No.63 of Gutala Begumpet Village including
Ac.25.00 guntas of land purportedly sold under sale deed dated
08.11.1965 bearing document No.1050 of 1965 executed by Nawab
Nazeer Nawaz Jung and 12 others.
62. Smt. Lateefunnissa Begum, mother of the petitioners in turn
executed gift deed bearing document No.910 of 1971, dated
31.03.1971 in favour of her husband and her four children, the
petitioners herein.
63. Perusal of record would also reveal that the Tahsildar,
Hyderabad West Taluk, issued a notice dated 22.07.1967 under Section
7 of Madras Encroachment Act, 1905 to the mother of the petitioners
seeking explanation from her as to why she should not be evicted from
the subject property. She has submitted explanation on 19.09.1967.
Thereafter, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Taluk, vide proceedings dated
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
74
30.07.1981 dropped the proceedings initiated against the mother of the
petitioners under the Madras Encroachment Act, 1905.
64. Referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Tummala Krishna Rao 10 and
other judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
initially Ms. De Costa, thereafter, Nawab Sultan ul Mulk Bahadur,
mother of the petitioners and petitioners have been in continuous and
longstanding possession over the subject property. Therefore,
petitioners cannot be evicted in a summary proceedings. Considering
the said aspect only, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, vide his proceedings
dated 30.07.1981 dropped the proceedings against the mother of the
petitioners initiated under the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
65. The petitioners also relied on the principle laid down by the
Division Bench in Shivaram Singh vs. Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority 11 wherein Division Bench held that once a
person is found to be in possession of the land, Government cannot
evict the said person summarily without following the due process of
law.
10
. AIR 1982 SC 1081
11
. 2024 (2) ALD 396 DB
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
75
66. As discussed supra, in the report dated 23.10.1967, the
Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, categorically held that the mother of
the petitioners was in possession over the subject property.
67. As discussed supra, petitioners and their mother filed a writ
petition vide W.P.No.15487 of 1989 challenging G.O.Ms.No.943,
dated 20.09.1989 allotting land admeasuring Ac.63.07 guntas in
Sy.No.63 of Guttala Begumpet in favour of Telugu University. Vide
order dated 12.02.1990, this Court disposed of the said writ petition
setting aside the said G.O. This Court also placed reliance on the
proceedings initiated by the Government in terms of Madras
Encroachment Act.
68. In an intra-court appeal filed by Telugu University vide
W.A.No.468 of 1990 challenging the said order dated 12.02.1990 in
W.P.No.15487 of 1989, Division Bench vide order dated 18.04.1990
dismissed the said writ appeal. Vide proceedings dated 21.09.1992,
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, dropped the said proceedings allotting
land to Telugu University.
69. Even then, petitioners were not put on notice and no
opportunity was afforded to them while issuing impugned proceedings.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
76
All the aforesaid impugned proceedings are behind back of the
petitioners and therefore are in violation of principles of natural justice.
70. As discussed supra, the requirements under Section 87 of the
Act 1317F are 1) There should be correction of clerical or other errors,
2) There should be admission by all the parties and 3) Application shall
be filed within two years.
71. The errors sought by respondents 15 to 57 are not clerical or
other errors, there is no admission of the same by all the parties and the
said application was not filed within a period of two years. The said
application was filed with abnormal delay, that too, without explaining
the reasons satisfactorily.
72. Some of respondents 15 to 57 filed W.P.No.8130 of 2002
seeking a direction to official respondents complete the enquiry and
correct the survey errors. Vide order dated 11.09.2002, this Court
disposed of the said writ petition. As discussed supra, respondents 15
to 57 are claiming that they are the legal heirs of holder of Muntakhab
No.9 dated 16.10.1950. But for the first time, they sought correction by
way of filing W.P.No.8130 of 2002. Thus, there is abnormal delay in
seeking correction.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
77
73. It is also apt to note that though this Court vide order dated
11.09.2002 in W.P.No.8130 of 2002 directed official respondents
therein to complete the enquiry within three months, official
respondents therein did not take any steps, but MRO has submitted
report dated 18.09.2003 to the RDO and Tahsildar. RDO submitted
report to the Collector, dated 02.03.2007. In both the reports, they have
stated that the petitioners are in possession of the property. Even then,
respondents 15 to 57 submitted representation dated 24.07.2021 to the
District Collector and others seeking correction and thereafter, filed
W.P.No.29387 of 2021 seeking a direction to them to consider the said
representation dated 24.07.2021. Despite the aforesaid order in
W.P.No.28635 of 2018, respondents 15 to 57 filed the aforesaid writ
petition without making the petitioners as parties and obtained order
dated 03.12.2021 at the admission stage.
74. It is noted that by the date of submission of representation
dated 24.07.2021 and filing of W.P.No.29387 of 2021, this Court, vide
order dated 16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018 filed by petitioners,
directed the parties to maintain status quo and further observed that
any violation will be viewed seriously. Even then, respondents 15 to 57
submitted a representation dated 27.08.2021 with District Collector,
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
78
CCLA and others seeking correction of survey error and completion of
enquiry in respect of Muntakhab No.9 and filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.29387 of 2021 obtained order dated 03.12.2021 without
making the petitioners as parties and without referring order dated
16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018. Thus, there is suppression of
fact by respondents 15 to 57 and they have played fraud on this Court
and obtained order dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387 of 2021. It is an
abuse of process of law and fraud played on the Court.
75. In A.V. Papayyasastry v. State of AP 12 and Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath 13, the Apex Court held that the Courts of law are
meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to
the Court, must come with clean hands. Fraud vitiates everything at
any stage.
76. Thus, there is suppression of fact by respondents 15 to 57
and they have not approached this Court with clean hands while filing
W.P.No.29387 of 2021. There are laches and there is abnormal delay
on their part.
12
. (2007) 4 SCC 221
13
. (1994) 1 SCC 1
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
79
77. It is trite law that a person in possession cannot be
dispossessed except in accordance with law and persons are not
permitted to take forcible possession. They must obtain such
possession as they are entitled to through a Court as held by Apex
Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh 14 and I.T.C.
Limited v. Adarsh Coop. Housing Soc.Ltd 15. The Apex Court in
M.C. Chockalingam v. V.Manickavasagam 16 held that law forbids
forcible dispossession, even with the best of title.
78. Despite well settled legal position that a person in
possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and
notwithstanding the fact that there is a subsisting interim order dated
16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018 directing the parties to maintain
status quo, any violation of the same will be viewed seriously,
respondents tried to dispossess the petitioners from the subject
property. Respondent No.5 who is a party to W.P.No.28635 of 2018
issued impugned proceedings dated 10.08.2022 in File
No.E1/1042/2022, whereby respondent No.5 further recommended
respondent No.9 for carrying out amendments of entries by de-
14
. AIR 1968 SC 620
15
. 2013 10 SCC 169
16
. 1974 1 SCC 48
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
80
notifying the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Stamps and
Registration Act, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.52-00 in
Sy.No.63/2 (old Sy.No.13) of Guttala Begumpet. The said proceedings
are in violation of order dated 16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018
and also law laid down by Apex Court.
79. Thus, there is abnormal and unreasonable delay on the part
of respondents 15 to 57 in approaching revenue authorities seeking
correction of survey error and enquiry in respect of Muntakhab No.9.
Doctrine of laches highlights that unreasonable delay in seeking legal
remedy of parties involved. Courts often consider whether delay is
administrative action prejudiced the rights of the claimants or third
parties balancing the interest of justice with administrative efficiency.
80. Without considering the said aspects, respondents issued
impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2022, 08.08.2022 and 10.08.2022
without putting the petitioners on notice and without affording
opportunity to them. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural
justice.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
81
81. As discussed supra, litigation is going on since 1967 on the
subject property. Even then, under the guise of implementation
Muntakhab No.9 vide order dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387 of
2021, official respondents obtained reports from Girdavar, Surveyor,
MRO etc., and issued impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2022,
08.08.2022, 10.08.2022 and Memo dated 19.08.2022 within a span of
3 months. Thus, respondents under the guise of the implementation of
the aforesaid order, issued the impugned proceedings in a hurried
manner. They have obtained Phodi, panchanama, inspection report etc,
in a hurried manner. Therefore, the action of official respondents
including the District Collector, CCLA and Inspector General, Stamps
and Registration, District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, in
issuing the impugned proceedings hurriedly in violation of principles
of natural justice, procedure laid down under Section 87 of 1317F and
also law laid down by Apex Court is highly deprecated. Therefore, the
Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, shall look into the entire matter
and take action in accordance with law.
82. In the light of the same, it is apt to note that the petitioner in
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 made serious allegations against the then Chief
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
82
Minister and his son in paragraph No.9 of the affidavit in I.A.No.3 of
2022.
83. In Padmamma v. S.Ramakrisha Reddy 17, the Apex Court
held that:-
“21. If the right of property is a human right as also a
constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects
such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such
right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.” (emphasis
supplied).
84. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat 18, the Apex
Court held as follows:
“48. …In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the
State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any
sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not
acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other
words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” (emphasis
supplied)
85. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar 19
held that:-
17
. (2008) 15 SCC 517
18
. (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596
19
. (2011) 10 SCC 404
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch83
“The right to property is now considered to be not only a
constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human
rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such
as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human
rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.”
86. In Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of
Maharashtra 20, the Apex Court has held that though right to property
is not a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also a human right; in
view of the mandate of Article 300A, no person can be deprived of his
property except by the authority of law.
87. In a democratic polity, governed by Rule of law, the State
could not have deprived a citizen of his property without the sanction
of law as held by Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C. 21.
88. There are serious title disputes between the petitioners and
respondents 15 to 57 with regard to subject property. There are several
disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
20
. (2020) 9 SCC 356
21
. (2013) 1 SCC 353
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
84
89. In Sohan Lal v. Union of India 22 and Thansingh Nathmal v.
Superintendent of Taxes Dhubri 23, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court while dealing with the question of title, held that civil suit
is an appropriate remedy rather than approaching the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercising prerogative of
writs.
90. As discussed supra, mother of the petitioners submitted a
letter dated 01.04.1968 to correct the survey errors and Joint Collector
submitted his report dated 29.12.1994 to the Commissioner SSLR,
recommending the said corrections. The said aspects were not
considered by the official respondents while issuing the impugned
proceedings.
91. Perusal of the record also would reveal that mother of the
petitioners let out Ac.7.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.63 of Guttala
Begumpet in favour of Yenkaiah. The same would reveal from the
proceedings dated 04.05.1971 of DRO, Hyderabad West.
22
. AIR 1957 SC 529
23
. AIR 1964 SC 1419
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
85
92. It is relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by Mandal
Revenue Inspector, Serilingampally Mandal, Police Madhapur, Guttala
Begumpet, have registered a case in Cr.No.496 of 2018 against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of
IPC etc., Investigation is pending in the said crime.
93. Without considering the said aspects, proceedings, orders,
decree and judgments etc, under the guise of implementation of order
dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387 of 2021, District Collector, CCLA
have obtained reports from Tahsildar, Girdavar, and Mandal Surveyor,
Serilingampally Mandal.
94. The RDO forwarded the said report dated 18.04.2022 of the
Tahsildar, Serilingampally to the District Collector, who in turn,
referred the same to CCLA. Vide proceedings dated 20.05.2022, the
CCLA instructed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to
thoroughly enquire and take necessary action in accordance with law.
Even then, the District Collector, did not put the petitioners on notice.
Vide order dated 16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018, this Court
directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
86
subject property, any violation of the said order, will be viewed
seriously.
95. The District Collector, CCLA are also parties to the said
writ petition. Even then, they have obtained report from Tahsildar,
Girdavar, Mandal Surveyor, Sherilingampally Mandal, and issued
impugned proceedings. Therefore, the aforesaid reports and impugned
proceedings are behind the back of the petitioners and by way of
suppression of material facts. The delay was condoned without putting
the petitioners on notice. Therefore, the proceedings dated 08.08.2022
and consequential proceedings dated 10.08.2022 of the District
Collector are in violation of the principles of natural justice and also
contrary to the record.
96. The proceedings, dated 19.08.2022 of the Commissioner,
SSLR, and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated
19.08.2022 through which he has directed the District Registrar, Ranga
Reddy District, to amend the entry in Sy.No.63/1 to an extent of
Ac.25.14 guntas as Sarkari, Sy.No.63/2 to an extent of Ac.52.20 guntas
has been deleted from the list of prohibitory properties. The said memo
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
87
is also in violation of the principles of natural Justice and contrary to
the record.
97. As discussed supra, there is chequered history to the subject
property. There is abnormal delay on the part of the respondents 15 to
57 in approaching respondents for correction of errors. Though
Muntakhab No.9 dated 16.10.1950, they have filed writ petition
No.8130 of 2002 and obtained order dated 11.09.2002 directing
District Collector and others to complete the enquiry and correct errors
with regard to subject Muntakhab. Thus, there is abnormal delay of 52
years.
98. Though vide order dated 11.09.2002 in W.P.No.8130 of
2002, this Court directed District Collector and others to complete
enquiry within three months, respondents 15 to 57 were silent and
submitted representation to the District Collector and others only on
24.07.2021 and filed W.P.No.29387 of 2021 seeking a direction to the
to the respondent officials to consider the said representation seeking
completion of enquiry and correction of survey errors. Thus, there is
delay of 19 years.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch
88
99. Even then, respondents issued the aforesaid proceedings
dated 20.05.2022, 30.07.2022, 08.08.2022 and 10.08.2022 basing on
reports dated 19.08.2022 and 18.09.2022, without putting the
petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity, under the
guise of implementation of orders dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.29387
of 2021. While issuing the said proceedings, respondents flouted the
order dated 16.08.2018 in W.P.No.28635 of 2018. Accordingly, the
point Nos.1 to 3 are answered.
CONCLUSION/POINT NO.4:
100. In view of the aforesaid discussion:-
i. W.P. No. 28635 of 2018 is allowed. Respondents are directed
not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the
subject property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.73-39 guntas in
Sy.No.63 situated at Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, except only in accordance with
law.
ii. W.P. No. 2151 of 2023 is allowed. The impugned proceedings
in File No.F1/1171/2022 dated 30.07.2022 of Commissioner
and Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SSLR)
including all consequential proceedings are herein set aside.
KLJ
W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and batch89
iii. W.P. No. 38277 of 2023 is allowed. The proceedings dated
10.08.2022 in File No.E1/1042/2022 of the District Collector
Ranga Reddy District including MEMO No.8077/2022 dated
19.08.2022 issued by Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside.
iv. W.P.No.40374 of 2022 is allowed. The proceedings in File No.
A3/84/2022, dated 08.08.2022 of the District Collector Ranga
Reddy District including all consequential proceedings are
hereby set aside.
v. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
28th October, 2024
Note:
The Registrar (Judicial-I) is directed to
circulate a copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, State of Telangana, who shall look
into the entire matter and take action in accordance with law.
(B/O.) vvr