Telangana High Court
Mirza Ibrahim Baig vs State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2022
Author: A.Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
W.P.NO.35004 OF 2016
O R D E R (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)
The 3rd respondent - Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, now Medchal District, Telangana, vide proceedings No.B/27308/2009 dated 16.04.2012 ordered for mutation of the names of the petitioners, who claimed to be the legal representatives of late Mahaboob Baig, donee of Nawab Ghousuddin Khan, the defendant No.52 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, to an extent of Acs.30.00 in Sy.No.172 situated at Hydernagar village; and the remaining extent of Acs.30.00 gts. out of Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.172 in favour of partners of Jayahoo estates. The operative portion of the order is as under:
"Keeping in view of the preliminary decree, division of properties in favour of D-52 Ghousuddin Khan by the Receiver - cum - Commissioner, Government memos, memorandum of family settlement, directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.1237 of 2009, dated 4-4-2008, W.P.No.8636 of 2009, dated 15-10-2009 and W.P.No.27028 of 2009 dated 11-12-2009, W.P.No.19123 of 2011 dated 19-07-2011 and orders in W.P.No.4787 of 2012 dated 10302912, mutation is hereby sanctioned in favour of L.Rs. of Mahboob Baig consisting of 15 members for an extent of Acs.30.00 and the remaining Acs.30.00 in favour of partners of Jayaho Estates consisting of (14) as follows in respect of land bearing Sy.No.172 admeasuring Acs.60.00 situated at Hydernagar village. The following names are incorporated in the column of pattedr/possessor to an extent of Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.172 in pahani by reducing the extents of Mirza Nazeer Baig and others."2
2. On the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.22420 of 2011 dated 12.03.2012 has granted status quo orders in respect of the lands covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958 and that the Government also issued Memo No.9302/JA.1/2012 dated 27.04.2012 according permission to the District Collector to protect the interest of the Government in respect of the valuable Government lands covered in C.S.No.14 of 1958, the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector - (I) Ranga Reddy District vide Case No.D5/5023/2013 entertained suo moto revision under Section 9 of the then A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and vide interim order dated 17.10.2013, suspended the orders passed by the 3rd respondent
- Tahsildar dated 16.04.2012, and subsequently vide order dated 15.09.2016 set aside the orders of the Tahasildar dated 16.04.2012, and directed to take necessary action for correction of entries in the Revenue Records. The relevant portion of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, who is the revisional authority, is as under:
"Examined the case and it is observed that Hon'ble High Court of A.P., based upon the preliminary decree passed on 28.06.1963 in C.S.No.14/1958 neither the Government nor the Jagir Administration though parties to the suit, but not parties to the compromised preliminary decree. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. restricted the preliminary decree only to the partition to the compromise and Government not being a party to the compromise. Hence it is not bound by the preliminary decree.
The rights of Government in respect of Jagir Lands were not adjudicated by way of full fledged trial and moreover as per Telangana Area Atiyath and Enquiry Act, 1982 the decision of Nazir Nawab Atiyat Court shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
The civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the rights of parties with regard to Jagirs. Moreover by date of preliminary decree in C.S.Nol.14 of 1958 dated 28-06-1963 the schedule lands were held already come under the control of Jagir Administration without any encumbrances and all these lands vested with Jagir Administrator.3
In view of the above and in result, the orders issued by DC and Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal in file No.B/27308/2009 dated 16-04-2012 are hereby set aside and accordingly this Suo-Moto Revision is allowed. The DC and Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal is directed to take necessary action for correction of entries in the Revenue Records."
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who were granted mutation by the Tahsildar vide order dated 16.04.2012, filed the present writ petition.
4. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the main reason for entertaining the revision was the status quo order passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.22420 of 2011 dated 12.03.2012 in respect of the lands covered in C.S.No.14 of 1958. The other ground is that the Government and Jagir Administration through parties to the suit, are not parties to the compromise petition between the parties. Further on the ground that the rights of the Government in respect of Jagir Lands were not adjudicated by way of full fledged trial. He submits that the Apex Court has dismissed SLP.No.22420 of 2011 vide order dated 26.11.2013 and the Government and the Jagair Administrator are defendants 53 and 43 respectively in C.S.No.14 of 1958, who filed written statements claiming some of the properties mainly the buildings and both these defendants never claimed possession, or ownership of the land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village, which is the subject property in the present writ petition, and hence it cannot be said that they are not parties to the said proceedings.
5. Learned counsel referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits that originally the property belongs to Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin Khan, s/o of late Himayath Nawz Jung 4 Bahadur, who was defendant No.52 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, which was filed by his legal heirs for partition of Paigah Khursheed Jah. During the pendency of the proceedings, some of the parties have entered into compromise and accordingly a preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 was passed and the present subject property, which are the lands in Hydernagar village, was item No.38 of Schedule IV of the suit, and this Hon'ble Court has given specific finding on all the issues including the subject property in this writ petition holding that it is Matruka propery of Kurhseed Jah Paigah.
6. As per the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963, the defendant No.52 - Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin was entitled to Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village. He orally gifted the said property to Mirza Mahaboob Baig on 10.10.1978 and subsequently the same was reduced into writing on 19.12.1978. After the death of the Mirza Mahoob Baig, the petitioners, who are his legal heirs, succeeded to the subject property, they are in physical possession of the property.
7. That the then State of A.P. filed Application No.44 of 1982 before the High Court to amend the preliminary decree so as to include the Hydernagar village i.e., the present subject land, for the purpose of Inam Enquiry, but the said application was dismissed on 18.12.1982, and then the State also filed O.S.A.No.1 of 1985, and when the same was also dismissed, State also carried the matter to Apex Court, but has withdrawn the said proceedings with liberty to challenge the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963. Accordingly the State has challenged the preliminary decree in OSA (SR) 3526 of 2000, but the same was dismissed on 07.12.2001, and 5 even the SLP Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 were dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2001.
8. Learned counsel submits that the original donar i.e., Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin, apart from tracing his title to C.S.No.14 of 1958, also has independent title to the subject property. He submits that after abolition of Jagirs, the then Government of A.P. initiated Inam Enquiry vide G.O.Ms.No.806, Revenue dated 06.06.1958. The enquiry was conducted by Nazir-Nawab Atiyat Court. In the process of inquiry, the said court has called for objections by way of Gazettee notifications in the State of Maharasthra, State of Mysore and State of A.P., and as no objections were received within the stipulated date, in the enquiry it was concluded that the village at Sy.No.380 and 381 have been verified as Inam Atlamagh in the name of Khurshid Jah Bahadur as per Kaifiat Jagirdaran. The village Sy.No.381 is Hydernagar village. The said enquiry was confirmed in the Appeal by the Board of Revenue on 1.4.1960 in file No.U3/63426/69. Challenging the Inam Atiyat enquiry and the order of Board of Revenue, W.P.Nos.632 of 1960 and 768 of 1960 were filed in the High Court, and the same were dismissed vide common order dated 11.11.1963. Thus after conclusion of Inam Enquiry, Muntakhad No.4 dated 14.02.1982 was issued and in the Inam Inquriy, the donor of the father of the petitioners i.e, Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin, was declared as legal heir and successor to the properties of Khurshid Jah Bahadur and he was allotted share, which includes the subject land herein admeasuring Acs.60,00 in Sy.No.172 of Hyderagar village. Thus, even without reference to the preliminary decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958, the donor has independent title to the subject property. 6
9. That Government had issued memo No.28908/JAI/2004-1 dated 5.11.2004 directing the Revenue Officials to effect mutation in land records in respect of the lands under Sy.Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Hafeezpet village and Sy.No.145, 163 and 172 of Hydernagar village in the name of the respective parties. Subsequently the Government have also issued another memo No.59734/JA.I/2005 dated 15.03.2008 confirming the earlier Memo of the Government dated 5.11.2004 and also directed the Revenue Officials to follow the instructions of the Government in Memo No.21162/JA.I/2004- 20 dated 25.04.2005, and thereafter also Government issued memo dated 18.05.2009 for effecting mutation in the revenue records.
10. As mutation was not effected, the petitioners have filed writ petitions before this court, and eventually the 3rd respondent, by virtue of the directions of this court and also by following due procedure and after issuance of notice to all the parties as required under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act, issued the proceedings dated 16.04.2012 for mutation of the names of the petitioners and also the vendees of the petitioner by name Jayahoo estates in the revenue records. But the 2nd respondent, with untenable grounds, set aside the mutation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and the same may be set aside by confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar.
11. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondent with similar averments. Sri Harinder Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Advocate General, referring to the 7 averments made in the counter affidavits would submit that preliminary decree in respect of the subject property was obtained by playing fraud on the court and hence the same is not binding on the Government. He submits that a Division Bench of this court in OSA.Nos.54, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2004 dated 20.12.2019 at paragraph No.414(f) of the judgment held as under:
"We declare that the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 as regards the lands in Hydernagar Village is obtained by practicing fraud both on the Courts as well as on the claim petitioners and other occupants of land in the said village and is declared void ab initio."
12. That a Division Bench of this court considering similar facts and circumstances in W.P.No.11032 of 2018 and batch held that since no final decree was passed, Tahsildar cannot pass any orders effecting mutation until a final decree is passed.
13. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that after coming into force of the Jagir Abolition Regulations, entire land vests with the Government. He further submits that documents relied on by the petitioners to trace title i.e., gift and the subsequent sale to respondents 4 and 5 are all unregistered, and they will not confer any title, and in the entire proceedings, except relying on the orders passed by this court in different proceedings, petitioners have not filed any single document showing their title, and the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, without examining the title of the petitioners, ordered for mutation of vast Government lands to an extent of Acs.60.00, which is illegal.
8
14. That in OSA.No.42 to 45 of 2013 a Division Bench of this court while dealing with batch of appeals, wherein final decree proceedings were challenged, held to be not binding on the State, and it was observed that any beneficiary under the final decree have to work out their remedies independently, and the said order has attained finality.
15. It is further averred that in the meanwhile the Government of Telangana has amended the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, vide Act No.1 of 2018, providing under Section 12-A that all the Jagir lands including Paigs, Samsthans Part of Jagirs, Makthas, village Agrahar, Umli and Mukasa etc., stood vested in the State. Under the said Act, the title and ownership of such lands shall never be transferred or shall never be deemed to have been transferred to any person. But the provision is not applicable to the lands which were already settled, transferred, assigned, allotted otherwise alienated by the State. It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.172 situated at Hydernagar village, Kukatpally mandal relating to Khursheed Jagir Paigah, was never alienated by the State, and hence they vest in the State.
16. That the writ petitioners claimed huge extent of land for which A.P. Land Reforms (COAH), 1973 and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are applicable, but there is no single whisper in the writ petition that petitioners filed declarations under the relevant provisions of the said Act, and thus they never exercised any right over the subject property and that the Government is exercising absolute right over the subject property, 9 and hence a person howsoever long his possession is over the land, without any valid right, title or interest, cannot claim any right.
17. With these averments, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed.
18. M/s Goldstone Exports Ltd., represented by its Director filed I.A.No.2 of 2016 (old WPMP.No.45567 of 2016) claiming right over the subject property and seeking to implead as respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition.
19. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.04.2022, and the said order reads as under:
"Sri N.M.Krishnaiah learned counsel appearing for M/s Bharadwaj Associates seeks permission of this court to withdraw the present implead petition with liberty to work out their remedies in the SLP.No.2373-2377 of 2020 which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Permission accorded.
Accordingly, this implead petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty as prayed for."
20. M/s Survishal Power Gen. Ltd., represented by its authorized signatory filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.35004 of 2016 seeking to implead in the writ petition. Vide docket order 05.07.2021 the implead petition was ordered and the petitioner in this application was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the writ petition.
21. In the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition it is stated that this respondent No.4 has purchased the subject land to an extent of Acs.19.36 gts. in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village, Balanaagar Manadal 10 under registered document bearing Nos.7665 of 2013, 205 and 206 of 2014 from the decree holders as well as the claim petitioners covered under Claim Peition No.1318 of 2003 and O.S.A.No.55 of 2004 and thereafter its name has been mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings of Tahsildar No.B/1125/2014 dated 29.05.2014. The impleaded respondent No.4 also filed photo copy of the Adangal / Pahani for the year 2016-17 showing its name in the khatadar/pattadar column and also in the possessory column to an extent of Acs.19.36 gts. in Sy.Nos.172/1 to 172/25.
22. It is further stated inter alia that after remand of the matter by the Apex Court, this court has dismissed O.S.A.Nos.54, 56, 57 and 58 of 2004 vide order dated 20.12.2019, wherein it is held that the inclusion of the lands in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village in the preliminary decree in the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958 itself is bad, and that the decree holders have failed to establish their title to the lands. Further this court by setting aside all the orders passed in the suit with regard to the lands, held that claim petitioners have established title to the lands in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village.
23. That in the judgment of this court in OSA.Nos.54, 56, 57 and 58 of 2004 dated 20.12.2019, the claim of the decree holders in the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958 was negatived and the claim of the claim petitioners have been declared with regard to the lands in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village. Therefore, the present writ petitioners, claiming through the oral gift given to their father Mr. Mohd. Mirza Mohboob Baig by defendant No.52 - Mohd. Ghusuddin Khan, who has no right over the subject lands, cannot derive 11 any title and hence their claim is to be rejected. That in view of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.52 on 03.08.1964 bearing document No.2460/1964 in favour of H.E.H., the Nizam and Nawab Khazim Nawaz Jung, who were impleaded as defendants 156 and 157 respectively, the defendant No.52 has no right to execute oral Hiba in favour of the father of the writ petitioners in the year 1978.
24. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed.
25. Petitioners also filed reply affidavits denying the above averments made in the counter affidavits and reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit.
26. One Mohammed Moizuddin Khan, claiming to be son of defendant No.52 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 i.e., late Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin Khan filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to implead him as respondent in the writ petition, and in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, he has supported the claim of the petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of non-opposition by way of any counter affidavit, this petition is ordered.
27. Heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.
28. In view of the above rival contentions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue that arises for our consideration is 12 whether the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the 2nd respondents requires any interference?
29. The main basis on which the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 was passed, is the order of status quo passed by the Apex Court in SLP.No.22420 of 2011 dated 12.03.2012 in respect of the lands covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958 and the memo No.9302/JA.1/2012 DATED 27.04.2012 issued by the Government for protecting the lands covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958, and to file O.S.A. against the final decree passed on 24.12.2007 and 31.03.2010 by the High Court.
30. The SLP.No.22420 if 2011 was dismissed by the Apex Court on 26.11.2013, and there is also no material on record that Government has filed any O.S.A. against the final decree passed on 24.12.2007 and 31.03.2010. The fact remains that against the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958 the State has carried the matter to the Apex Court in SLP.Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2011, and it ended in dismissal vide order dated 16.07.2001.
31. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the ground on which the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 16.04.2012 was set aside, is that, either the Government, or the Jagir Administration were not parties to the compromise decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958, though they were parties to the suit. It is also stated that the rights of the Government in respect of jagir lands were not adjudicated by way of full fledged trial and that the decision of Athiyath Court shall be final. But as per the averments noted above, which are not disputed, the Jagir Administration was D-43, and Government 13 was D-53 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, and they also filed their respective written statements, which were considered and preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963. Hence, it cannot be said that they are not parties, and further the appeal filed by the Government against the preliminary decree was dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.07.2001, as it was filed after a delay of 38 years. So, the ground on which the order of the Tahsildar was set aside, can be said to be non-existing.
32. A perusal of the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, Rangareddy dated 16.04.2012 goes to show that the claim of the petitioners is that the subject property which is to an extent of Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar was allotted to D-52 Ghousiddin Khan, and he executed gift deed in favour of Mirza Mohaboob Baig, who is the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 on 19.12.1978 and their father expired on 25.10.1981, and after his death, his children as his legal heirs, succeeded to he property and they executed G.P.A. in favour of one C.J.Rama Krishna. The 3rd respondent - Tahsildar also considered the dismissal of the appeal filed by the State against the preliminary decree in SLP (Civil) No.10622 of 2001 and 10623 of 2001 dated 16.07.2001. It is also found that the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Mahboob Baig, filed writ petitions for mutations of their names in the revenue records. They also filed O.S.No.1521 of 2010 for dividing the shares among the legal heirs and the same was allowed by this court on 26.04.2010. Based on the directions of this court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, which are noted in the order of the Tahsildar, enquiry was conducted, and it was found that the petitioners, who are the applicants, are in actual possession and 14 enjoyment of the land to an extent of Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.172 and the Tahsildar after service of notices to all the concerned as required under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act, ordered for mutation.
33. Apart from the above, the claim of the writ petitioners is that the original donar i.e., Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin, apart from tracing the title to C.S.No. 14 of 1958, has also independent title to the subject property. That after abolition of Jagirs, the then Government of A.P. had initiated Inam enquiry vide G.O.Ms.No.806, Revenue dated 06.06.1958. The enquiry was conducted by Nazir Nawab Atiyat Court. In the process of the Inam enquiry, the Nizim Atiyat Court has called upon objections on 28-01-1960 by way of Gazette in the State of Maharashtra, 31-03-1960 in the State of Mysore and 28-07-1960 in the State of A.P. Accordingly, publication was made in the Gazettee calling for objections to the claim of the Nawab Himayat Nawaz Jung within six weeks from the date of publication of notification in the Gazette. In the said Gazettee notification, Hydernagar village was shown at Sr.No.381. In the said enquiry, it was concluded that the villages at Sl.No.380 and 381 have been verified as Inam Atlamagah in the name of Khurshid Jah Bahadur as per Kaifiat Jagirdaran etc. of 1296/H. Hydernagar was confirmed in the name of Paigah, as compensation of Sayer and Inam Altamagagh. The said enquiry was confirmed in the Appeal by the Board of Revenue on 1.4.1960 in file No.U3/63426/69. Challenging the Inam Atiyat enquiry and the order of Board of Revenue, W.P.Nos.632 of 1960 and 768 of 1960 were filed in the High Court, and the same were dismissed vide common order dated 11.11.1963. Thus after conclusion of Inam Enquiry, Muntakhad No.4 dated 14.02.1982 was issued and in the 15 Inam Inquriy, the donor of the father of the petitioners i.e, Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin, was declared as legal heir and successor to the properties of Khurshid Jah Bahadur and he was allotted share, which includes the subject land herein admeasuring Acs.60,00 in Sy.No.172 of Hyderagar village. Thus, even without reference to the preliminary decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958, the donar has independent title to the subject property.
34. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 does not disclose that the revisional authority has considered the grounds on which the mutation was ordered. On the ground that an order of status quo was granted by the Apex Court in 22420 of 2011 and that the Government and Jagir Administration are not parties to the compromise petition, order passed by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar dated 16.04.2012, was set aside. As noted above, those grounds are found to be non-existing.
35. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it could be seen that new grounds have been raised, which does not form part of the impugned order. It is well settled that the impugned order has to stand based on the reasons contained in the said order, and those reasons cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit. (See MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER1)
36. In the counter affidavits it is sought to be contended that petitioners, except relying on the orders passed by various authorities, have not proved the source of their title and that this aspect has not been examined by the primary authority. Further it is sought to be contended 1 AIR 1978 SC 851 16 that the preliminary decree was obtained by playing fraud on the court and in this regard reliance is sought to be placed on the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in OSA.No.54, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2004 dated 20.12.2019 at paragraph No.414(f).
37. As already noted above, the grounds, which are raised in the counter affidavit, does not form part of the impugned order and hence, considering these grounds, the impugned order cannot be adjudicated, and only on the reasons recorded in the impugned order, the validity of the same has to be gone into.
38. It is also needless to observe that if the 2nd respondent intends to pass orders on the grounds raised in the counter affidavit, he has to issue notice indicating the said grounds and after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned, can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, but certainly he cannot seek to set aside the order passed by the primary authority on non-existing grounds, and seek to justify those orders, by supplying reasons in the counter affidavit.
39. By virtue of the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.10622 and 10623 of 2001 dated 16.07.2001 it is clear that the preliminary decree in respect of the claim of the Government has attained finality. Further the Government issued Memo No.28908/JAI/2004-1 dated 5.11.2004 directing the collectors to effect mutation in land records in respect of the lands in C.S.No.14 of 1958 including Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village. The then Government of A.P. has also issued another Memo No.59734/JAI/2005 dated 15.03.2008 confirming the earlier orders of the Government dated 5.11.2004 to effect 17 mutation in the names of the decree holders duly comply with the subsequent orders of the High Court, and the Government instructions dated 25.04.2005 under intimation to Government.
40. The 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, considering all these facts and circumstances, ordered for mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. As noted above, without even adverting to these facts and circumstances, and on other grounds, which does not form part of the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent - revisional authority passed the impugned order, which cannot be sustained, and the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
41. With regard to the impleaded 4th respondent, its claim is that it is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village, Balangar mandal to an extent of Acs.19-36 guntas by way of registered sale deed bearing document Nos.7665 of 2013, 205 and 206 of 2014, having purchased the same from the decree holder as well as from the claim petitioners covered by Claim Petition No.1318 of 2003 and O.S.A.No.55 of 2004 and there after the mutation was granted by the Tahsildar vide proceedings No.B/1125/2014 dated 29.05.2014. The further claim of the impleaded respondent No.4 is that in O.S.A.Nos.54, 56, 57 and 58 of 2004 dated 20.12.2019, this court has negatived the claim of the decree holders in CS.No.14 of 1958 and claim of the claim petitioners have been declared with regard to the lands in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar village, and as the petitioners are claiming through oral gift given to their father Mr. Mohd. 18 Mirza Mohboob Baig by defendant No.52, 4th respondent has no right over the subject lands, they cannot derive any title.
42. The counsel for petitioners would submit that the name of impleaded respondent No.4, which is a company, is already entered into revenue records and hence it shall not have any grievance. The said assertion is not disputed by the counsel for impleaded respondent. In view of the same, impleaded respondent will not be affected if order of mutation dated 16.04.2012 in proceedings No.B/27308/09 in favour of petitioners is restored. If impleaded respondent is still having any grievance, it can work out its remedies in an appropriate forum.
43. In view of above facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and accordingly allowed, and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector vide Case No.D5/5023/2013 dated 15.09.2016 is set aside, and consequently the order passed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings No.B/27308/2009 dated 16.04.2012 is restored.
44. At the time of pronouncement of order, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that based on the impugned order the subject land was included in the list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting registrations.
45. Since the impugned order is set aside, the consequential order including the subject land in the list under Section 22-A of the said Act, is also quashed.
19
46. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
----------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
--------------------------------------------
SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J Date:26--04--2022 AVS