Telangana High Court
WP/23373/2020 of Syed Mohammed Saleem and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION NO: 23373 OF 2020 Between: 1. Syed Mohammed Saleem, S/o. Late Mohammed Khaja tvloinuddin, Aged 60
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO: 23373 OF 2020
Between:
1. Syed Mohammed Saleem, S/o. Late Mohammed Khaja tvloinuddin, Aged60 years, Occ. Business,60 years, Occ. Business,
2. Syed Mohammed Ghouse, S/o. late Mohammed Khaja lVloinuddin, aged58 years Occ. Business,58 years Occ. Business,3. Sabera Banu, D/o. Late [\,4ohammed Khana Moinuddin, Aged 53 years,Occ. House wife,Occ. House wife,
4. Shaheda Banu, D/o. late Mohammed Khaja [\,4oinuddin, Aged 46 years,Occ. house wife,Occ. house wife,AII are R/o. H No. 16-4-72711, Chanchalguda, Ir/alakpet, Azampuram,Hyderabad 500 036.Hyderabad 500 036.
Rep by their GPA Holder, l\,4irza Shakeer Baig, S/o. late lt4iza Rahim Baig,aged 56 years, Occ. Managing Director, Baghbaan EstatesR/o.O/o.H No.2-3-512l13, Bapunagar Road Bank Side King Palace Hotel,Amberpet, Hyderabad 500 013.
...PETIT|ONERS
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, IMalkajgiri, lVledchal-Malkajgiri District.4. The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgir, District.5. Syed Atan Saheb lVlandavi, S/o. Syed Shahabuddin, aged 85 yearsR/o. H No. 16-3-54711, Chenchalguda. Hyderabad. 4. The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgir, District.5. Syed Atan Saheb lVlandavi, S/o. Syed Shahabuddin, aged 85 yearsR/o. H No. 16-3-54711, Chenchalguda. Hyderabad.
...RES'.NDENT'
Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ of |\,4andamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing theProceedings dated 2711211995 in File No,.B/31/95 by deleting the originalpattadar name i.e., grandfather of the petitioners namely Late SyedI\rlohammed Saheb from the revenue records by including the name of the sthrespondent in respect of the petitioners agricultural property situated inSy No. 42, extent of Ac.4.32 gts, Sy no. 43 extent ol Ac.14.23 [gts, ]Sy No. 45extent of Ac.0.12 gts, Sy No. 1 17 extent of Ac.1.03 [gts, ]Sy No. 170 extent ofAc.1.29 gts, Sy no.297 extent of Ac.0.34 [gts, ]Sy no. 533 extent of Ac.2.25 [gts]and Sy No. 534 extent of Ac.7.22gls totaling Ac. 30.00 [gts ]situated at AliyabadVillage, East Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District without issuing anynotice or without obtaining any explanation from the [petitioners ]is highly illegal,arbitrary and against the [principles ]of natural [justice ]and also violative ofArticles 14, 1 9, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia by setting the same andconsequently direct the 4th respondent to enter the names of the [petitioners ][in]
the revenue records in respect of the above lands as the legal heirs of originalpattadar in the interest of .justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toSUPEND the operation of the Order passed by the 4th raspondent in File No.8/31/95 dated 2711211995 by mutating the names of the petitioners in therevenue records in connection with the petitioners lands situated in Sy No.42,extent of 4c.4.32 gts, Sy no. 43 extent ol Ac.14.23 gts, Sy No. 45 extent of4c.0.12 gts, Sy No. 117 extent of Ac.1.03 gts, Sy No. 170 extent ol Ac.l .29gts, Sy no. 297 extent of Ac.0.34 gts, Sy no. 533 extent of Ac.2.25 gts andSy No, 534 extent of Ac.7.22gts totalling Ac.30.00 gts situated at AliyabadVillage, East Shamirpet lt/andal, It4edchal-[t4a lka [jg ]iri District, pending disposalof the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J. SATHEESH KUMARCounsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUEThe Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.2337 3 0F 2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia is filed by the petitioners, wherein the following prayer ismade:
"... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, declaring theaction of the 4!h respondent in passing the Proceedingsdated 27 .12.1995 in File No. B/31/95 by deteting theoriginal pattadar name i.e., grandfather of the petitionersnamely Late Syed Mohammed Saheb from the revenuedated 27 .12.1995 in File No. B/31/95 by deteting theoriginal pattadar name i.e., grandfather of the petitionersnamely Late Syed Mohammed Saheb from the revenuerecords by including the name of the 5rh respondent inrespect of the petitioners agricultural property situated inSy No. 42, extent of Ac.4.32 gts, Sy no. 43 extent ofAc.14.23 gts, Sy No. 45 extent of Ac.0.12 gts, Sy No. 117respect of the petitioners agricultural property situated inSy No. 42, extent of Ac.4.32 gts, Sy no. 43 extent ofAc.14.23 gts, Sy No. 45 extent of Ac.0.12 gts, Sy No. 117extent of Ac.1.03 gts, Sy No. 170 extent of Ac.1.29 gts,Sy no. 297 extent of Ac.0.34 gts, Sy no. 533 extent of4c.2.25 gts and Sy No. 534 extent of Ac.7.22gts totalingAc. 30.00 gts situated at Aiiyabad Village, East ShamirpetSy no. 297 extent of Ac.0.34 gts, Sy no. 533 extent of4c.2.25 gts and Sy No. 534 extent of Ac.7.22gts totalingAc. 30.00 gts situated at Aiiyabad Village, East ShamirpetMandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District wlthout issuing anynotice or without obtaining any explanation from thepetitioners is highly illegal, arbitrary and against theprinciples of natural justice and also violative of Articles74, 19, 27 and 300-A of Constitution of India by settingthe same and consequently direct the 4rh respondent toenter the names of the petitioners in the revenue recordsin respect of the above lands as the legal heirs of originalpattadar in the interest of justice and to pass such otherorder or orders ...."principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles74, 19, 27 and 300-A of Constitution of India by settingthe same and consequently direct the 4rh respondent toenter the names of the petitioners in the revenue recordsin respect of the above lands as the legal heirs of originalpattadar in the interest of justice and to pass such otherorder or orders ...."
2, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing forrespondent Nos.l to 4 and perused the record.Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing forrespondent Nos.l to 4 and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit thatoriginally the grandfather of the petitioners, namely SyedMohammed Saheb, is the absolute owner and pattadar of landsadmeasuring Ac.4-32 9ts., Ac.L4-23 9ts., Ac.0-12 gts.,Ac. 1-03 gts., Ac.1-29 gts., Ac.0-34 gts., Ac.2-25 gts., andAc.7-22 gts., in Survey Nos.42, 43,45, lI7, L70,297,533 and534, situated at Aliyabad Village, East Shamirpet Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and enjoying the said lands bycultivating the same. He died in the year 1950 leaving behindhis only son, namely Syed Mohammed Khaja Moinuddin i.e.,father of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners executedWill Deed, dated 10,02.1965, in favour of the petitioners inrespect of the subject lands. The father oF the petitioners alsoexpired on 28.06.1965. While so, respondent No.5 fabricatedand created a Memorandum of Gift, dated 20.05.1989, alleged tohave been executed by the original pattadar i.e., SyedMohammed Saheb, who died in the year 1950, in his favour inrespect of the subject lands. Basing on the same, respondentNo.4-Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,issued the impugned proceedings vide File No.B/31/95, dated27.12.7995, mutating the name of respondent No.5 in therevenue records in respect of the subject lands, without givingany notice to the petitioners and ultimately, prayed to grant therelief sought for in this Writ [petition, ]as indicated above.
4. Learned Assistant Government [pleader ]for Revenue wouldsubmit that the petitioners are challenging the mutation proceedings of the year 1995. Further, as the petitioners areclaiming title against unofficial respondent No.5, no relieF assought for by the petitioners can be granted in this Writ petitionfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thepetitioners have to approach the competent civil Court and seekappropriate relief and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the WritPetition.filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thepetitioners have to approach the competent civil Court and seekappropriate relief and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the WritPetition.
5. As seen from the material placed on record, thepetitioners are claiming title over the subject lands under a WillDeed, dated 10.02.1965, whereas respondent No.5 is claimingtitle over the subject lands by virtue of a Memorandum of Gift,dated 20.05.1989. There is tifle and possession dispute betweenthe petitioners and respondent No.S.
6. It is settled law that if, in a petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India, complicated questions of fact whichrequire a regular and full-fledged trial are involved, it is butprudent that the Court should refrain itself from entertainingsuch petition and relegate the party to the normal remedy toobtain redress in a Suit. Since, there is a serious dispute withregard to the title of the parties to the litigation in respect of thesubject lands it is not appropriate for this Court to decide thecontentions raised by the petitioner in this Writ petition.However, it is open for the petitioner to work out the remediesbefore the competent civil Court I
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition isdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SD/.L.LAKSHMI [BABU]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]'//TRUE COPY//,.*'L' SECTION OFFICER
\To'1. On" CC to Sri J. Satheesh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]i. i;; ca. tt [GP ][for Revenue' ][High ][Court ][for ][ihe ][State of ][Telangana]at Hyderabad. [OUT]3. Two CD CoPiesSM
HIGH COURTDATEO:3011212020
ORDERWP.No.23373 ot 2020
DISMISSING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS
F?' [<1,/]42
1 BE [ST4]16q('*Joi)2 0 JAN [2021]az)"Or.)l-'-'z