Burra Gnaneshwar Goud And 21 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 16 September, 2020

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Burra Gnaneshwar Goud And 21 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 16 September, 2020

Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO


           WRIT PETITION Nos.21415 and 21416 of 2019


COMMON ORDER:

The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is land in the same village Sikanderguda Village of erstwhile Hyderabad (West) Taluq of Hyderabad District, which is presently in Gandipet Mandal of Ranga Reddy District and common questions of law and facts arise for consideration. So these two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

The case of the petitioners in brief :

2. The petitioners are claiming new e-Pattadar Pass Books to replace old pattadar pass books and title deeds given to them by the Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandipet Revenue Mandal, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State in respect of Survey Nos.5 to 9 and 17 (in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019) and Survey Nos.1 to 4 and 18 (in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019) of Sikanderguda Village of erstwhile Hyderabad (West) Taluq of Hyderabad District, which is presently in Gandipet Mandal of Ranga Reddy District.

The case of the petitioners

3. Petitioners contend that the said land was originally Inam Maktha land belonging to one Safia Begum; that one Burra Ramaiah, 2 father of petitioner nos.3 to 6 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 who was also father of petitioner nos.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 was her tenant till 1970; after the death of the said Burra Ramaiah in 1970, petitioner nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 along with late B. Sathaiah (father of petitioner nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019) continued in possession of the land which is subject matter of the Writ Petition uninterruptedly; and after the passing of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 ( for short 'the Act'), the said lands vested with the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The petitioner nos.3 to 5 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 along with Late B. Sathaiah applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (West) Division to be registered as an occupant in respect of Acs.13.21 gts. in Survey Nos.5 to 8 and 17 of Sikanderguda Village under sec.8 of the said Act and after conducting an enquiry under sec.10 of the said Act, and after issuing notices to the legal heirs of the Inamdar Safia Begum, vide proceedings No.A1/1447/1975 dt.08.05.1978 Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted under Section 8 of the said Act in favour of petitioner nos.3, 5 and 6 and late B. Sathaiah in respect of the said land. Copy of the proceedings No.A1/1447/1975 dt.08.05.1978 has been filed along with the Writ Petition.

5. Likewise, in respect of Acs.25.17 gts. in Survey Nos.1 to 4 and 18 of Sikanderguda Village which is subject matter of Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted Revenue 3 Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (West) Division under Sec.8 of the said Act vide proceedings No.A1/1448/1975 dt.08.05.1978 to

(i) Burra Ramaiah for Acs.8.19 gts.,

(ii) B. Mallesha, B. Raghavulu, B. Ramchander and B. Tulsi Das, sons of B. Jangaiah and who are predecessors of petitioner nos.8 and 14 for Acs.8.19 gts.;

(iii) B. Yadaiah, B. Chennaiah and B. Dasarath, sons of B. Kondaiah (predecessors of petitioner nos.15 to 22) in respect of Acs.8.19 gts. Copy of the proceedings No.A1/1447/1975 dt.08.05.1978 has been filed along with the Writ Petition.

6. They paid the premium fixed by the erstwhile Government before obtaining the Occupancy Rights Certificate under the above proceedings.

7. The proceedings granting Occupancy Rights Certificates to the petitioners / their predecessors have attained finality and have not been challenged by anybody till the filing of these Writ Petitions.

8. It is contended by the petitioners that there was mutual understanding among the members of the Burra family wherein after a survey was carried out, part of the lands in Survey No.4 were exchanged with land in Survey No.17 and petitioners in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 became entitled to the land in Survey No.4 and the 4 petitioners in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 became entitled to the land in Survey No.17.

9. It is contended by the petitioners that there was inter se partition between the petitioners and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 on the basis of their possession. Copies of the same were filed along with the Writ petitions.

10. They contend that e-pass books are being issued by the State Government in substitution of the existing pass books for administrative convenience of the Government and to facilitate on- line transactions through electronic media; and the petitioners, are entitled as a matter of right to get the said e-pass books in substitution of the earlier pass books and title deeds granted to them.

11. They rely on interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.41245 of 2018 on 29.11.2018 whereunder this Court held that the Tahsildar cannot suo moto, under the guise of a Memo issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancel the pattadar pass book issued under the above Act earlier or refuse to grant new pattadar pass book and that he has no power to do so.

12. It is contended that denial of e-pattadar pass books to the petitioners would cause the petitioners to lose benefits under the Rytu Bandhu Scheme of the State of Telangana and the Pradhan Mantri 5 Kisan Yojana Scheme of the Union of India and is illegal and arbitrary.

Order dt.27.09.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition 21416 of 2019

13. The petitioners sought an interim direction in I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 in both the Writ Petitions to issue to them new pass books / online entries (Dharani) in line with old pass books which were issued to them earlier in respect of the lands in both the Writ Petitions.

14. On 27.09.2019, in both the I.A.s the following order was passed:

"Having regard to the order dt.29.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.41245 of 2018 and for reasons alike, and since in the instant case also there is no dispute that the petitioners were issued pattedar pass books earlier in respect of the subject land, there shall be interim direction as prayed for."

15. Thereafter, when the said interim orders were not complied with, the petitioners filed C.C.No.1439 of 2019 and C.C.No.1438 of 2019. Thereafter, several adjournments were sought for filing counter-affidavits in the Writ Petitions and in the above C.C.s.

16. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Appeals filed under Section 24 (1) of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by M/s. Vajani Infra i.e - Case No.F1/2945/2019 (in respect of the lands which are subject matter of Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019) and Case No.F1/2942/2019 filed (in respect of the lands which are subject matter of Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019), suspended the Occupancy 6 Rights Certificates granted to the petitioners and their predecessors in 1978 on 11.12.2019.

I.A.Nos.1 of 2020, 2 of 2020 and 3 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.Nos.1 of 2020, 2 of 2020 and 3 of 2020 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019 :

17. Petitioners therefore filed I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 in both Writ Petitions to implead the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and M/s. Vajani Infra, the appellant in the Appeals before the said Joint Collector, as respondent nos.5 and 6 in both the Writ Petitions.

18. They also filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 in both the Writ Petitions to amend the Affidavit as well as prayer in the Writ Petitions by challenging the orders passed on 11.12.2019 by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/2945/2019 and F1/2942/2019.

19. It is contended by the petitioners that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy did not refer to the locus standi of M/s. Vajani Infra to file the said appeals; he could not have entertained the Appeals filed by M/s. Vajani Infra, 41 years after the Occupancy Rights Certificates were granted to the petitioners / their predecessors in 1978; that the time for filing an appeal to the Joint Collector was only (30) days from the date of grant of the Occupancy Rights Certificate; that the very entertainment of the said Appeal by the Joint Collector is contrary to orders passed in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2224 of 2019 not to dispossess or cause interference with the petitioners' rights and not to forcibly dispossess petitioners from the lands in their occupation as per the Occupancy Rights Certificates; and the Joint Collector is not competent to entertain an appeal against the order of 7 the Revenue Divisional Officer who is a deemed 'Collector' by virtue of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.

20. They sought stay of further proceedings before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case Nos.F1/2942/2019 and Case No.F1/2945/2019 in I.A.Nos.3 of 2020 filed in both the Writ Petitions.

21. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 in both the Writ Petitions were ordered on 03.01.2020.

22. In I.A.No.3 of 2020 in both the Writ Petitions, stay of all further proceedings in Case Nos.F1/2942/2019 and Case No.F1/2945/2019 in I.A.Nos.3 of 2020 pending before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District was granted pending further orders in the Writ Petition. I.A.Nos.4 of 2020 and 5 of 2020 in both the Writ Petitions :

23. In the meantime, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (for short, 'the CCLA'), Telangana State, at the instance of M/s. Vajani Infra, allegedly representing 87 legal heirs of Late Vicar-ul-Umra (Paigah), Smt. Sahebzadi Hameedunnisa Begum and one Mohd. Mohinuddin Khan, issued a notice on 27.01.2020 in CCLA's Reference No.NA2/208/2005 (Case No.NA2/208/2012) stating that the said applicants had filed petitions for release of property situated in Survey Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, (now Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) admeasuring Acs.187.27 gts. before the Court of Wards 8 (himself i.e.,the CCLA) and that the case is posted for hearing on 10.02.2020.

24. Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions then filed I.A.No.4 of 2020 to implead the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (Telangana State) as 7th respondent in both the Writ Petitions contending that the said land was not under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards and the Court of Wards / CCLA had no jurisdiction to entertain any application by the above referred individuals. Reliance was placed on Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 issued vide proceedings Commr' SS & LR's reference No.NA2/73/69 dt.11.06.1985 in respect of the above Paigah by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. and in particular, Appendix - E of the said Muntakhab , wherein Sikanderguda Village was excluded from Paigah claim and was mentioned as 'Arazi Maktha' (Inam without land revenue).

25. They also filed I.A.No.5 of 2020 to suspend all further proceedings in CCLA's Reference No.NA2/208/2005 (Case No.NA2/208/2012).

26. I.A.No.4 of 2020 was allowed on 07.02.2020 and the CCLA was impleaded as 7th respondent in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 and as respondent No.132 in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019; and in I.A.No.5 of 2020, the proceedings initiated by him under the above Reference were suspended.

27. The Advocate General took notice on behalf of the Chief Commissioner for Land Administration (CCLA), State of Telangana.

28. The Special Government Pleader filed a communication CCLA's Ref.No.NA@/208/2005 dt.25.8.2020 sent to him by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Land Administration with a note attached to it.

29. The contents of the said note will be discussed while dealing with the contentions of respondents 1-4.

I.A.No.6 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.3 of 2019 in WP.No.21416 of 2019 :

30. The petitioners filed I.A.No.6 of 2020 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 to implead as respondent nos.8 to 132, the persons who had sought release of the property through the 6th respondent- Firm admeasuring Acs.187.27 gts. in Survey Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village from the Court of Wards (CCLA).

31. They also filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 to implead as respondent nos.7 to 131, the persons who had sought release of the property through their GPA Holder, the 6th respondent-Firm admeasuring Acs.187.27 gts. in Survey Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village from the Court of Wards (CCLA).

32. Both these applications were allowed on 03.01.2020 by this Court.

33. Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate, took notice for all these parties in both the Writ Petitions and also for the 6th respondent. 10 I.A.NO.7 OF 2020 IN W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.6 of 2020 in WP.No.21416 of 2019 :

34. These applications are filed by four individuals seeking impleadment in the Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 respectively.

35. These persons claim to be the direct descendants of late Paigah Vicar-ul-Umra and contend that the property in question in Sikanderguda is still in the custody of Court of Wards (CCLA) and that when such is the situation, it cannot be transferred or disposed of; and since they have an interest in the said property, they ought to be impleaded.

36. These applications will be dealt separately at the end of this Order.

Memo filed by 6th respondent - M/s Vajani Infra on behalf of the 6th respondent and respondent nos.8 to 132 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 and respondent nos.6 to 131 in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019

37. Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, counsel filed Memos dt.26.08.2020 and 06.08.2020 respectively on behalf of the partners in M/s. Vajani Infra who also acted as GPA Holders to respondent nos.8 to 132 in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019, and respondent nos.7 to 131 in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 stating that they had resolved their disputes with the Writ petitioners in WP.No.21415 and 21416 of 2019 outside the Court in a settlement, that they have no claim whatsoever in respect of land in Survey Nos.1 to 8, 16, 17 and 18 of Sikanderguda Village and that it / they has no objection to relief being granted in favour of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. 11

38. In view of the said Memo, we hold that the Appeals filed by the 6th respondent before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F1/2942/2019 and F1/2945/2019 are deemed to be withdrawn, and the said Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and interim orders passed in the said Appeals by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District suspending the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted to the petitioners / their predecessors in A1/1447/1975 dt.08.05.1978 and A1/1448/1975 dt.08.05.1978 are declared null and void, and are set aside.

The case of the respondent nos.1 to 4 in brief :

39. The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, who is 4th respondent in the Writ Petitions filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of himself and respondent nos.1 to 3.

40. In the note sent by the CCLA's office to the Special government Pleader also similar contentions are raised.

41. The respondent nos.1 to 4 contended that the village of Sikanderguda is being claimed as property of Paigah Vicar-ul-Umra who had died in 1902; on his death his properties were under 'Nigrankari' of various persons until 1950; vide Notification No.4485 dt.04.08.1950, the then Chief Minister placed the Estate of the said Paigah under the supervision of the Court of Wards w.e.f. 05.08.1950; the list of properties kept under supervision of the Court of Wards was not published in the said notification, but in 1961, the Board of Revenue proceeding in File No.Y1/750/59 mentioned the properties 12 of Estate of Sir Vicar-ul-Umra and it was published in A.P. Gazette No.03 dt.26.01.1961; under this proceeding those properties were released in favour of L.R.s of Paigah Vicar-ul-Umra with a stipulation that the two groups should evolve procedure and method regarding the distribution of the property in two months.

42. According to the respondent nos.1 to 4, Maktha Sikanderguda of extent Acs.187.27 gts. is mentioned at Serial No.8 of a notification issued under the Head 'Statement showing land under supervision of Court of Wards, Andhra Pradesh, belonging to Estate of Vicar-ul- Umra'.

43. It is contended that within the time stipulated the two groups did not agree upon the distribution of the property and that it was again taken over vide G.O.Ms.No.225 dt.12.02.1964 and kept under the Court of Wards from the date of its release.

44. It is however admitted that an Inam Enquiry was held by the Nazim-e- Atiyat basing on the claim petition of Nawab Md. Abdul Fateh Khan and 50 others through Court of Wards and the same was published in the Gazette vide Notification No.2447/1 dt.04.01.1960; and in this claim petition, Maktha Sikanderguda was claimed as Arazi Maqtha. It is further admitted that after conclusion of the Inam enquiry a Munthakab No.05 dt.14.02.1982 was issued declaring the properties of Vicar-ul-Umra.

45. It is then stated that one Md. Kasim, a 'Nigrankar' had made a representation dt.25.02.2006 alleging encroachment of Survey Nos.9, 14, 15 and 16 admeasuring Acs.21.00 out of Survey Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village and to protect the same; and later Smt. Ameerunnisa Begum and 22 others moved the High Court for protection of the property and an interim order was granted in WPMP.No.17197 of 2006 on 07.07.2006 directing fencing of the land and sign-boards were directed to be erected in land in Survey Nos.9, 14, 15 and 16 of extent Acs.187.27 gts. in Maqtha Sikanderguda which were alleged to be in the superintendence of the Court of Wards. It is stated that this was done by respondent nos.1 to 4.

46. It is therefore contended that petitioners in Writ Petition No.21415 of 2019 are not in possession of any portion of land including Acs.13.21 gts. in Survey Nos.5 to 9 and 17; and petitioners in Writ Petition No.21416 of 2019 are not in possession of Acs.25.17 gts. in Survey Nos.1 to 4 and 17 of Sikanderguda Village.

47. The respondents 1 to 4 put the Writ petitioners to strict proof with respect to issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates and it is asserted that any such certificates would be without jurisdiction and invalid. It is contended that stray entries in Revenue Records do not confer any title.

48. It is asserted that the matter is pending before the Court of Wards and that it is not released as on this date; and neither the 14 petitioners nor any other persons have any right or title over the said lands. It is stated that the lands are in possession of the Government.

49. It is stated that issuance of e-pattadar pass books to the petitioners is not possible and petitioners are not entitled to them.

50. It is also stated that old pattadar pass books issued to farmers in the State of Telangana are not valid and are deemed to be cancelled and there is no need to cancel the old pass books specifically because the Government introduced new policy to issue e-pass books. Consideration by the Court

51. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land in Sikenderguda village is not property belonging to Paigah Vicar-ul- Umrah. But it is the contention of the respondents that it belongs to Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah and that it is in the supervision of the Court of Wards even now.

52. Therefore I shall first deal with this aspect.

53. The learned Advocate General has produced before me G.O.Ms.No.225 Revenue Department dt.12.02.1964 and also Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 issued vide proceedings Commr' SS & LR's reference No.NA2/73/69 dt.11.06.1985 in respect of the above Paigah by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

54. G.O.Ms.No.225 Revenue Department dt.12.02.1964 no doubt states that the estate of Vicar-ul-Umrah was placed by the State 15 Government under the Court of Wards in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1315 Fasli from 26.01.1961.

55. However the truth comes to light if the contents of the Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.2.1982 is looked into.

Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 issued by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad indicates that Sikandarguda was excluded from the claim of Paigaih Vicar-ul-Umrah's legal heirs by order dt.28.10.1968 of Nazim-e-Atiyat which was confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 29.12.1976.

56. The Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 points out the following important facts :

(a) the Paigah was originally exempted from inam enquiry under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, but the State Government in their G.O.Ms.No.1106 (Revenue) dt.06.06.1959 issued orders for conducting a detailed inam enquiry in respect of Paigahs.

(b) Accordingly, the Nazim-e-Atiyat took up inam enquiry in respect of the Paigah of Vicar-ul-Umrah.

(c) As the properties relating to this Paigah were under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, the Officer in charge, Paigah Sir Vicar-ul-Umrah filed a Claim petition before the Nazim-e-Atiyat on behalf of the wards (i.e. the descendants of the Nawab Sultan-ul-

Mulk and Nawab Wali-ud-Dowla etc.) on 11.09.1959. 16

(d) The Paigah laid claim over 421 villages, one of which is Sikandarguda as well.

(e) In File No.1/56/1961-62, the Nazim-e-Atiyat completed the enquiry and, after hearing the arguments of the parties and examining and verifying the Sanads and other documentary as well as oral evidence, decided on 28.10.1968 that 8 villages including Sikandarguda should be excluded from the claim of Paigah.

(f) This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way of appeal under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 by the Officer in charge, Paigah on behalf of Nawab Miftahuddin Khan and others. Nawab Basheer-yar-Jung, S/o.Nawab Wali-ud-Dowla filed another appeal. Nawab Habeeb Jung, another son of Nawab Wali-ud-Dowla filed another appeal.

(g) All these appeals were taken up and examined together by the Board of Revenue.

(h) A common judgment was passed on 29.12.1976 in File Nos.NA2/73/1969, NA2/130/69 and NA2/254/69. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the Nazim-e-Atiyat.

57. Appendix-E to the said Munthakab mentions the list of villages excluded from the claim of the Paigah and mentions in item No.6 the village of Sikenderguda which is the subject matter of these Writ Petitions.

58. Under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952, the decision of the Board of Revenue is final.

59. Therefore in view of the decision dt.29.12.1976 of the Board of Revenue confirming the order dt.28.10.1968 of the Nazim-e- Atiyat that Sikanderguda village is excluded from the claim of the Paigaiah Vicar-ul-Umrah, the claim of his legal heirs or that of the Court of Wards, which represented the claim of his legal heirs through its Officer In Charge before the Board of revenue and the Nazim-e-Atiyat, for land in Sikandarguda village, on the ground that the said land is still the property of the Paigah Vicar-Ul- Umrah, cannot be accepted and is rejected.

60. It is also important to note that as per the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli, the Board of Revenue was the Court of Wards (Section 4).

61. The Chief Commissioner for Land Administration (CCLA) is also the successor to the Board of Revenue by virtue of the provisions of the A.P. Board of Revenue (Replacement by Commissioners) Act, 1977.

62. In his communication CCLA's Ref.No.NA@/208/2005 dt.25.8.2020 sent to the Special Government Pleader at para 1, it is admitted that the Court of Wards as per the Telangana Court of Wards Act,1350 fasli is the CCLA.

63. Therefore, it is not open to the Chief Commissioner for Land Administration (CCLA) to act contrary to the decision of the Board of Revenue, his predecessor, and insist that he still has jurisdiction over the land in Sikenderguda Village since he is functioning as the Court of Wards instead of the Board of Revenue.

64. The Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 could not explain how there could be any claim by the legal heirs of the Paigah Vicar-Ul- Umrah/the CCLA (Court of Wards), once the Board of Revenue had confirmed the order of the Nazim-e-Atiyat that Sikendarguda Village was excluded from the claim of the Paigah, and the said order had attained finality.

65. He also could not explain why it is necessary for a separate release order to be passed by the Court of Wards or the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), who is the successor to the Court of Wards for releasing Sikenderguda Village lands from supervision of the Court of Wards ( as is being contended by the respondents 1 to 4), in view of the decision dt.28.10.1968 of the Nazim-e-Atiyat which was confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 29.12.1976.

Government has no right, title or interest in the property which is subject matter of any supervision by the Court of Wards.

66. Section 3(a) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act,1350 fasli defines the term "Ward" to mean any person whose 19 property or whose person and property has or have been taken under the custody and superintendence of the Court of Wards under this Act or by a Firman of HEH the NIZAM passed before the commencement of the Constitution of India or an owner whose property has been notified under Section 13 to have been taken under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards.

67. Under the said Act, the Board of Revenue is constituted as the 'Court' under Section 4; if an owner of land (as defined in Section 3

(b) of the said Act) is disqualified for the management or control of his property (in the manner indicated in Section 7 thereof), and the District Collector receives information that such owner who resided or whose property is situated within his territorial jurisdiction, has died or disappeared and has reason to believe that his successor is a person who is or should be declared to be disqualified under Section 7, he can invoke Section 8 and take possession of the property of the deceased or missing owner, and appoint a manager; and if the successor is a minor, he can also direct the person having his custody to produce before him.

68. Section 10 empowers the Collector to conduct an enquiry if he has reason to believe that any owner is or should be declared to be disqualified under Section 7, to report this fact to the Board of Revenue/Court; and under Section 11 the Court shall submit a report along with its opinion to the State Government, and may, pending 20 orders of the Government, adopt necessary measures at its discretion, for protection of the person of the heirs and property of the owner.

69. Section 16 of the Act states that if the Court has assumed superintendence of the property of a ward, the Collector shall take possession and custody of the property on behalf of the Court and manage it. Section 17 enumerates the powers of the Collector, Section 18 permits allowances to be given to the Ward and his family and dependants; Section 19 deals with the power of the Court to make orders for his custody, residence, education and marriage; Section 20 deals with the power of the Court to appoint a guardian; and Section 53 provides for withdrawal of Superintendence of the person and property of the Ward when he attains majority or when a civil Court declares that he is no more insane etc.

70. Thus from the scheme of the said Act, it is clear that where owners of the land are disqualified to manage the same or where the successors to the owners are minors, the Act permits management by the State through the District Collector for some time. On account of such management, the property in question does not cease to be private property and will not become Government property.

71. This view has been taken by me in an order dt.03.06.2018 in W.P.Nos.39825 and 39232 of 2017.

72. So even assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that that the subject land is under the supervision of the Court of 21 Wards, it would not become Government property and the respondents 1- 4 have no jurisdiction to claim to deal with it. Whether there could be an enquiry in respect of land in Sikanderguda under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955?

73. I shall now consider whether it is permissible for an enquiry to be made under Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in respect of lands in Sikanderguda village for consideration of the claims of the petitioners/their predecessors-in- title for grant of Occupancy Right Certificates under Section 8 of the said Act.

74. The Muntakab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 which was issued by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records vide proceedings Commr./SS&LR's Reference No.NA2/73/69 dt.11.06.1985 shows in para-8 that though the lands of the Paigah were originally exempted from enquiry under the above Act, subsequently the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1106 (Revenue) dt.06.06.1959 issued orders for conduct of detailed inam enquiry in respect of Paigahs also; and that the Nazim-e-Atiyat took up the inam enquiry in respect of Paigah of Sir Vicar-ul-Umarah.

75. It goes on to state that Sikanderguda village though an inam village was excluded from the Paigah claim as per Appendix -E to the Muntakab after a decision to that effect was taken on 28.10.1968 by the Nazim-e-Atiyat which was confirmed on 29.12.1976 by the Board of Revenue.

76. Therefore, there was no impediment for the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (West) Division, who was the designated authority to consider claims for issuance of Occupancy rights Certificate under the said Act to conduct enquiry under Section 10 of in respect of lands in Sikanderguda village and grant Occupancy Right Certificates vide proceedings A1/1447/1975 dt.08-05-1978 and proceedings A1/1448/1975 dt.08-05-1978 to the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title.

77. The respondents 1 to 4's plea that he has no such jurisdiction is a false plea and is rejected.

The decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered on 28.06.2011 in W.P.No.13819 of 2006 and decision dt.13.12.2012 in W.P.No.34107 of 2012 are obtained by playing fraud on the Court as well as the Writ Petitioners and their predecessors-in-title in W.P.Nos.21415 and 21416 of 2019

78. It is no doubt true that in W.P.No.13819 of 2006 at the instance of Sahebzadi Amirunnisa Begum and others, there was an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 28.6.2011 that the land in Sikanderguda village be fenced with barbed wire and kaddi stones showing it as Government land; and it is alleged by respondents 1 to 4 that this was done on the instructions of the CCLA.

79. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have also filed an order dt.13.12.2012 in W.P.No.34107 of 2012 which was filed by Mohd. Mohiuddin Khan claiming as Coordinator-cum-Protector of Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah who sought a direction to raise a compound wall or erect a fence to protect the lands in Sy.No.1 of 19 of Sikandarguda village. No doubt 23 in the said decision it was mentioned that the petitioner therein admitted possession of the Government.

This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition permitting the petitioner to raise compound wall under the supervision and control of an Officer of the CCLA and to keep the property in the possession of the Government pending passing of final decree in a civil suit O.S.No.47 of 1965 said to be pending before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at that time.

80. If really there had been any fencing erected pursuant to the order dt.28.6.2011 in WP No.13189 of 2006, there would not have been any occasion for the petitioner in WP.No.34107 of 2012 to file the said Writ Petition.

81. This itself disproves the plea of the respondents that the land Ac.187.27 gts in Sy.No.s 1 to 19 in Sikanderguda village is in the possession of the State Government.

82. There is no evidence adduced in the instant Writ Petitions that there is any compound wall erected around the said land in Sikanderguda village. Therefore this plea is also disbelieved.

83. Most importantly, the petitioners who filed WP No.13189 of 2006 and WP.No.34107 of 2012, did not implead any of the petitioners in W.P.No.21415 and 21416 of 2019 though Occupancy Rights Certificate had been issued on 5.8.1978 itself to them/ their 24 predecessors-in-tile herein. Therefore the said orders do not bind the Writ Petitioners herein.

84. Secondly, the petitioners in the said Writ Petitions never questioned the Occupancy Right Certificates issued to the petitioners herein by the Revenue Divisional Officer in 1978 nor the consequent pattadar passbooks or title deeds.

85. Thirdly, there is no adjudication of any issue in the said Writ Petitions by this Court and such orders were passed obviously because the Court was not informed of the true facts by the Writ petitioners therein as well as the State Government officials who were party to the said Writ Petitions i.e., either that the land in Sikanderguda village was not Government land or that it was not property of Paigah Vicar- ul-Umrah even by 1976 as per the decision of the Board of Revenue dt. 29.12.1976 in File Nos.NA2/73/1969, NA2/130/69 and NA2/254/69. referred to above.

86. There was suppression of the above facts by the State Government and its Officers probably in collusion with the Writ Petitioners who filed W.P.No.13819 of 2006 and W.P.No.34107 of 2012.

87. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath1, the Supreme Court held that non-production and non-mentioning of crucial facts in any Court tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court and if a party 1 (1994) 1 SCC 1 25 were to withhold vital document in order to gain advantage on the otherside, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. It declared that such orders would be a nullity, It stated:

" 5. ... The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."(emphasis supplied)

88. The Supreme Court reiterated the same in Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf2 and observed that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that any order or decree obtained by practising fraud is a nullity.

89. Consequently, the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered on 28.06.2011 in W.P.No.13819 of 2006 and decision dt.13.12.2012 in W.P.No.34107 of 2012 are declared to be 2 (2007) 6 SCC 756 26 decisions obtained by the petitioners therein in collusion with the State Government officials by playing fraud and by suppressing true facts, i.e., that Sikanderguda Village is to be excluded from the claim of the Paigah Vicar-Ul-Umrah and thus not part of the property of late Paigah Vicar-Ul-Umrah as per the decision 28.10.1968 of the Nazim-e-Atiyat which decision was also confirmed on 29.12.1976 by the Board of Revenue ( as per para 8 of Muntakhab No.5 dt.14.02.1982 contained in Commr "SS&LR's Ref No.NA2/73/69 dt.11.06.1985).

90. Therefore, the orders in both the Writ Petitions are declared as nullities, obtained by the parties thereto including the State by playing fraud on the Court and also on the Writ Petitioners herein, and not binding on the petitioners in W.P.No.21415 and 21416 of 2019. Consideration of the contentions of the Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Advocate General

91. In I.A.No.2 of 2019 in both the Writ Petitions (vacate Stay Application), counter-affidavits were filed by the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandipet on behalf of himself and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Writ Petitions. As stated above, similar contentions are raised by the CCLA in his communication CCLA's Ref.No.NA@/208/2005 dt.25.8.2020 sent to the Special Government Pleader.

92. In para-2 and 3, it is contended that Sikanderguda and other properties of the estate of Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah was kept under the 27 supervision of the Court of Wards initially on 05.08.1950 and again later on 12.02.1964 but it is admitted that Muntakab No.5 was issued on 14.02.1982 declaring the properties of the Paigah.

But the respondents do not deliberately refer in the counter- affidavit to the contents of the same Muntakab which refers to the exclusion of Sikanderguda Village from the claim of the Paigah in Annexure-E thereto on account of the Order dt.28.10.1968 of the Nazim-e-Atiyat which was confirmed on 29.12.1976 by the Board of Revenue. This suppression of facts is a clear attempt to again mislead the Court and play fraud on it to benefit the non-official respondents.

In our opinion, there cannot be any doubt that the said village was brought out of the Court of Wards by the decision of the Board of Revenue and all claims of the legal heirs of Vicar-ul-Umrah in respect of the said land have been extinguished.

Therefore reference to representation dt.25.02.2006 by one Md.Kasim, an alleged Nigrankar of the Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah about alleged encroachment of lands in Sikanderguda village and his request to protect the same made to the Government is of no avail because by then the legal heirs of the said Paigah had no claim to any land in the said village. So the said representation could not have been entertained at all.

93. The respondents 1- 4 also stated that petitioners said that they sought a review of the order passed in W.P.No.13819 of 2006, but in 28 the reply affidavit this was denied by the petitioners.In my opinion they need not seek any review of the said order since it does not bind them.

94. In para-5 of the counter, it is stated that petitioners are not in possession of any portion of the land claimed by them in Sy.Nos.1 to 9, 16 to 18 in Sikanderguda village.

This contention has no merit because it is settled law that when an Occupancy Rights Certificate is issued under Section 8 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the said person is obviously found to be in possession of the same on 1.11.1973 as per settled law.

The Occupancy Right Certificates are statutory instruments of title conferred under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955; and the lands in respect of which they are granted would absolutely vest in the holder of such Certificate and he would have absolute right over the said land. The question of proving them to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar does not arise and he has no authority or jurisdiction to question the same.

95. Admittedly pattadar passbook and title deeds and also 1-B RoR was issued to the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title, copies of which have been filed along with the Writ Petition. Unless the petitioners had possession, they would not have been given the same by the Revenue Department of the State.

Therefore the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are not in possession of the above lands for which they and their predecessors-in-title were given Occupancy Right Certificates and that the State Government is in possession of the same, is rejected.

96. It is next contended that since the land in Sikanderguda belongs to the Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah and is under the custody of the Court of Wards and that the Occupancy Right Certificates issued by the competent authority to the petitioners and their predecessors-in- title are not valid.

I reject the said contention in view of my finding firstly that the lands in Sikanderguda village is not the property of the Paigah Vicar- ul-Umrah as per the decision of the Board of Revenue dt.29.12.1976 (as mentioned in para 8 of the Muntakab No.5 dt.14.02.1982), which decision binds all the respondents including the CCLA (the Court of Wards); and the Court of Wards cannot plead that it is still under its supervision.

97. Therefore the respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot say that there is a claim for the land in Sikandarguda village by the legal heirs of Sir Vicar-ul-Umrah or that the land in Sikandarguda village is under the supervision of the Court of Wards on behalf of the legal heirs of Sir Vicar-ul-Umrah and that it is yet to be released by the said Court of Wards.

98. There is no necessity for a release order from the Court of Wards of the lands in Sikandarguda village having regard to the verdict dt.29.12.1976 of the Board of Revenue, the highest body then in the State of Andhra Pradesh dealing with claims under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952.

99. Consequently, the Proceedings in CCLA's Ref.No.NA2/208/2005 (Case No.NA2/208/2012) issued by the CCLA proposing to consider release of property situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of extent Ac.187.27 guntas is wholly without jurisdiction. The same is accordingly quashed.

The interim order dt.29.11.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.41245 of 2018 of the Telangana High Court

100. This Court dealt with a similar case like the instant Writ Petitions where no pattadar passbooks and other benefits under the Rythubandhu Scheme in W.P.No.41245 of 2018. The following interim order was granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner says that earlier petitioner was issued title deed and pattadar passbook in respect of subject lands i.e. Ac.0-17 guntas in sy.No.849/A, Ac.0-24 guntas in sy.No.856/A and Ac.0-05 guntas in sy.No.856/A1 of Alair Village, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District and her name is also entered in revenue records and when she has applied for issuance of new pattadar passbook and benefits under rythu bandhu scheme, the 3rd respondent issued a memo dated 05-07-2018.

A reading of the impugned memo goes to show that request of the petitioner is rejected only on the ground that some other person 31 has purchased the land of the petitioner and the petitioner is not in possession of the same. The Tahsildar cannot suo motu under the guise of impugned memo cancel the pattadar passbook granted to the petitioner earlier and refusal to grant new pattadar passbook amounts to cancellation of pattadar passbook granted earlier and Tahsildar has no power to do the same until the earlier pattadar passbook is cancelled. The Tahsildar has no business to issue the impugned memo refusing to issue new pattadar passbook.

In view of the same, the impugned memo is suspended and there shall be interim direction to issue new pattadar pass book and other benefits under 'Rythu Bandhu Scheme' to the petitioner in respect of subject lands."( emphasis supplied)

101. I completely agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the above interim order.

102. The fact that petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been issued under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands for which Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued to them by the Competent Authority under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, is admitted by the respondents. Their plea that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title were never in possession of the said lands has been rejected.

103. None of the respondents have the power or the jurisdiction to interfere at this point of time with the orders passed on 08.05.1978 in Proceedings No.A11/1447/1975 and A11/1448/1975 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners and their predecessors- in-title.

104. The respondents 1 to 4 are therefore not entitled to consider the pleas of any other persons to either ownership or possession of the said lands and they are also not entitled to contend that the writ petitioners are not entitled to E-passbooks claimed by them.

105. I also hold that the 4th respondent has no power to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds already issued to the petitioners earlier and he has no business to refuse to issue such E-passbooks to the petitioners for the above lands.

Consideration of I.A.No.7 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.6 of 2020 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019.

106. These Applications are filed by four petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of late Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah for impleadment in these Writ Petitions.

107. Heard Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the proposed parties and Sri K.S.Murthy for the Writ Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions who are impleaded as respondents 8 to 13 in the above Applications.

108. It is the plea of the proposed parties that Sikanderguda Village is the property of late Paigah Vicar-ul-Umrah and is still in the custody of the Court of Wards by virtue of Government Orders passed on 05.03.1959, 26.01.1961 and 27.02.1964.

109. I have already held that the lands in Sikanderguda village for which petitioners and their predecessors-in-title were given 33 Occupancy Right Certificates is not the property of the Paigah Vicar- ul-Umrah as per the decision of the Board of Revenue dt.29.12.1976 (as mentioned in para 8 of the Muntakab No.5 dt.14.02.1982), which decision binds all the respondents including the CCLA (the Court of Wards) and the Court of Wards cannot plead that it is still under its supervision.

110. Therefore, I hold that the proposed parties have no right, title or interest in the lands in Sikanderguda Village and they are not entitled to be impleaded in these Writ Petitions.

111. Consequently I.A.No.7 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.6 of 2020 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019 are dismissed. Conclusion

112. Accordingly,

(a) both Writ Petitions are allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-

to be paid by respondents 1 to 4 to each of the Writ Petitioners;

(b) the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to issue E-pattadar passbooks to the petitioners in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 for the lands admeasuring Ac.13.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.5 to 8 and 17 of Sikanderguda Village Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to the petitioners in W.P.No.21416 of 2019 for the lands admeasuring Ac.25.17 guntas in Sy.Nos.1 to 4 and 18 of Sikanderguda Village, Gandipet 34 Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within two (02) weeks from today;

(d) I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2020 in both Writ Petitions are allowed;

(e) I.A.No.6 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019 are allowed;

(f) I.A.No.7 of 2020 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and I.A.No.6 of 2020 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019 are dismissed;

(g) the Proceedings in CCLA's Ref.No.NA2/208/2005 (Case No.NA2/208/2012) issued by the CCLA proposing to consider release of property situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 19 of Sikanderguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of extent Ac.187.27 guntas is held to be wholly without jurisdiction and the same is quashed;

(h) in view of the Memos dt.26.08.2020 and 06.08.2020 filed by Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, counsel for respondents 6 to 132 in W.P.No.21415 of 2019 and respondents 6 to 131 in W.P.No.21416 of 2019, the Appeals in Case Nos.F1/2942/2019 and F1/2945/2019 filed by the 6th respondent before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District are deemed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such; and the interim orders passed in the said Appeals 35 by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District suspending the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted to the petitioners/their predecessors in Proceedings A1/1447/1975 dt.08.05.1978 and A1/1448/1975 dt.08.05.1978 are declared null and void and are set aside.

113. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in both the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 16-09-2020 Ndr/Vsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court