Telangana High Court
Raunaq Yar Khan, vs The State Of Telangana, 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 batch 4 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 batch 5 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 batch 7 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 batch 8 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 batch 18 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 batch 39 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 batch 40 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 batch 41
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 batch 42 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 batch 43 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 batch 44 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 batch 45 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 batch 54 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 batch 63 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 batch 64 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 batch 83 "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 batch 89 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