Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Syed Mohammad Ghouse, Special Deputy Tahasildar in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Enquiries, Hyderabad was examined as D.W-1. He deposed that Khairatabad Village was formerly a part of Sarfekhas. The Sarfekhas was merged with Dewani in 1358 Fasli. On the merger of Sarfekhas in the Dewani, the record of the Sarfekhas was sent to respective Department of Dewani. The certified copies of faisal patti with regard to Makta Niyamathullah Shah were marked as Exs.B24 to B29. In Ex.B29 it was recorded by the Nizam Jamabandi that in respect of Survey numbers 9/2 to 9/15 earlier orders in faisal patti of 1355 Fasli to the effect that the patta for the lands covered under the said survey numbers were cancelled for the reasons recorded. Ex.B30 is the certified copy of the faisal patti for 1950. The father of the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector against the orders, of Nizam Zamabandi in Ex.B30 and Ex.B31 is the judgment dismissing the said appeal on 30-9-1950. Appeal filed before the Board of Revenue by the father of the first plaintiff was also dismissed and Ex.B32 is the copy of the judgment. The certified copy of the judgment passed by the Sarfekhas is Ex.B37. Ex.B38 is the certified copy of the judgment of Moziz committee. Printed copy of the Muntakhab is Ex.B40. Printed copy of the statement in respect of Makta Niyamathulah Shah is Ex.B41. The maktha lands in question were under the submergence of Hussainsagar and from 1909 onwards structures have been constructed in the disputed land by the Electricity Department. Setwar is a Survey Register. No notice was issued to the plaintiff before passing an order under Ex.B35. In Setwar disputed lands are mentioned as sarkari. The Electricity Department is in possession of the suit land from 1909.

19. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession and hence the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are mainly relying on the Muntakhab, which is a crucial document. The evidence of P.W-1 and the documents marked would disclose that the suit property consists of Inam land covered by inam maktha and the land assigned by Sarfekhas authorities. Under Ex.A1 there was a grant of 72 bigas of inam land. As seen from Ex.A1, no survey numbers or boundaries are mentioned in the said document. It was a personal grant to the grand father of first plaintiff. There is no documentary evidence that the original grantee enjoyed the suit properties. He died in the year 1918. It is also admitted by P.W-1 that no patta was granted in favour of the original grantee. Abdul Khader did not apply for issuance of a patta in respect of the excess land. The extent of the excess land referred under Ex.A1 was not determined. The plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove that they applied for assignment and competent authority assigned the said lands. So far as maktha lands are concerned, there was no subsequent grant by Nizam and by the time the proceedings started, the property vested with the Government. Statement of maktha enquiry, which is in Urdu shows that the Maqta was granted by the Qutub Shahi Rulers which became Sarfekhas property (private property of the Nizam) subsequently. In the maqta enquiry, the Taluqdar (Sarfekhas) recommended that maqta be granted in favour of Md. Abdul Quadir and others, who were ancestors of the plaintiffs. The location of the Maqta, which is referred to as Maqta Niamatullah Shah was mentioned as adjacent to Hussainsagar. As seen from the letter of Administrative Committee of Sarfekhas (Mubark) HEH, the Nizam sanctioned confirmation of cash grants and the Maqta excluding the land covered by graveyard and the Kings bungalow. The original Muntakhab of Maqta Naimuthullah Shah had excluded the King's bungalow with the land and the graveyard while sanctioning confirmation of Maqta by H.E.H. the Nizam. A Palace was constructed during the life time of H.E.H. the Nizam, which was referred to as King's bungalow and later came to be known as the Secretariat. The land between the Secretariat and the Hussainsagar was part of the excluded land and was lying vacant. It was the land of the Sarfekhas. The plaintiffs and their predecessors in title are claiming their right. The certified copy of panchanama is filed to show that the land bearing Survey Numbers 9/2, 9/10, 9/12, 9/15, 9/16 to 9/20 were put in possession of the inamdar. The document in Urdu recites "Hence the Maqta may be restored in favour of Syed Shah Mohd. Wajhullah Hussain Asrari, Maqtedar of Maqta Naimatullah Shah and after release and handing over a detailed compliance report, should be sent along with the receipt." Such an important order directing delivery of possession of land bearing survey numbers noted above, which was excluded from regrant of Maqta under Muntakhab could not have been directed to be delivered without an order. No order was filed in support of the panchanama. For the above said reasons, the lower Court rightly disbelieved those documents.

20. The next aspect to be considered is when the original grantee failed to seek patta for the additional grant, whether his right extinguished and his legal heirs cannot claim any right and title. The only source of title for the inam land is under the original of Ex.A1 Muntakhab. The land remained as the Sarfekhas land and on merger of Sarfekhas in Divani on 5-2-1949, it became the Government land. On coming into force of the A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the lands vested with the Government. Neither the plaintiffs nor his predecessors in title obtained occupancy certificate in respect of the land in dispute under the Inams Abolition Act. In the absence of documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that Mohd. Nooruddin Asrari had no title to the suit land and consequently the plaintiffs cannot derive any right or title. On the death of inam holder, the property reverted to the Nizam and before the Nizam regranted, the property merged with the Government. The plaintiffs are relying on the entries in khasra pahani. It is only a piece of evidence, but it cannot confer any right or title to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not allege any regrant. It is also admitted that the inam land was taken over for non-payment of taxes and subsequently they were handed over. The original grant was in favour of seven individuals and the plaintiffs are not the sole legal representatives. It is admitted by P.W-1 that the plaintiffs applied for grant of patta, but there is no proof that such a petition was filed. No revenue receipts are produced for the enjoyment of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title. In the absence of documentary evidence, we come to the conclusion that the lower Court has not erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the suit property. The next document relied on by the plaintiffs is the Setwar. It is noticed that the entries in the said pahani is interpolated and therefore the genuineness of the entries are in question. The documents relied on by the plaintiffs are not the originals, but they are certified copies. Further, those documents are not proved by any independent evidence and hence in the absence of proof, we are unable to believe the documents to be true. For the above said reasons, the lower Court has not committed error in not relying on those documents.