Telangana High Court
Nawab Mohd Zainulabeddin Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 4 January, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.41272 of 2017
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.S.Santosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; and Mr.N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action on part of the respondent No.3 in effecting mutation in favour of the names of the respondents in the Revenue records in accordance with the final decree dated 26.12.2003 in Application No.1409 2 of 2003 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 passed by this Court as directed in the order dated 05.03.2009 in W.P.No.1729 of 2009 in respect of land under Sy.No.46, Raidurg Village, Paigah, Serillingarnpally mandal, R.R.District without giving notice to the petitioners who are the legal heirs of defendant No.13 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and having share of 4 acres 81 cents under schedule A item No.234 as per preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 is highly illegal arbitrary and in violation of the directions of this Hon'ble Court in C.C.No.217 of 2014. Consequently this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No 3 to give notice to the petitioners before effecting mutation in favour of the respondents No.4 in respect of land under Sy.No.46, Raidurg Village, Paigah Serillingampally Mandal, R.R.District in the interest of justice and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the interest of justice.
3
3. Without entering into other contentious issues, we may mention that C.S.No.7 of 1958 is still pending before this Court, though, from time to time, certain orders were obtained by different parties by filing applications. We may mention that we have appointed a new set of receivers - cum - commissioners and have requested them to submit comprehensive report on the basis of which we may consider drawing up the final decree.
4. When the land in question is subject matter of C.S.No.7 of 1958 which is pending, question of any party seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of said land would not arise.
5. We make it clear that if any such order has been passed by the revenue authorities, the same would be of no legal consequence. As a matter of fact, parties to the suit or their legal representatives would have to abide by the final decree that may be drawn up on the basis of the report to be submitted by the newly appointed receivers - cum - commissioners.
4
6. Further, we have been informed across the Bar that Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).Nos.19647 & 19648 of 2022 has stayed all orders arising out of R.I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.I.A.No.3 of 2020.
7. With the above clarification, writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 04.01.2023 MRM