WP/27429/2005 of Syed Shujjiat Ali Hussaini, Vs The Chief Commissioner Of Land Administration, A.P, on 30 December 2005

:O R D E R:

The petitioner herein claims to be the Inamdar of agricultural land admeasuringAcs.35-08 gts., comprised in survey Nos. 398, 399, 409, 410, 411 and 579 ofMalkajgiri village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district, having acquired the same as asuccessor of late Smt. Tajunnisa Begum, original holder of Muntakab and Inamdar. Itis the case of the petitioner that due to dispute among the shareholders, A.P. WakfBoard took control over the lands and the lands were recorded as ‘Nigrani WakfBoard’. Subsequently, there was a compromise among the shareholders andSaheb-e-Muntakab, which is also recorded by this court in W.P.No. 211 of 1966. In1967, a part of the land was acquired for Railways and in view of the dispute forapportionment of the compensation, the matter was referred to the civil court inO.P.No. 243 of 1967 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad. In the said O.P. No. 243 of 1967, the claim of the A.P. WakfBoard was rejected and the compensation was paid to the petitioner. The mutationin favour of the original Inamdar was sanctioned by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, butall the lands were not included. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application beforethe Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, who, by the proceedings dated 29-10-2003, passed orders in favour of the petitioner while rejecting the claim of others.Thereafter, on 10-10-2005, the petitioner made a representation to the firstrespondent seeking appropriate mutation and issue of Pattadar Passbooks and titledeeds. By Memo dated 26-10-2005, the first respondent directed the secondrespondent to take necessary action in the matter, in vain. Therefore, the present writpetition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to implement theorders of the first respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the Revenue DivisionalOfficer-cum-Inams Tribunal, passed orders in favour of the petitioner, rejecting theclaims of third parties in respect of the subject land, there could not have been any objection for issue of Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General), after gettinginstructions in the matter, submits that in obedience to the Memo dated 26-10-2005issued by the first respondent, the third respondent has passed orders on 03-12-2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as the same is registered in the revenuerecords as ‘Wakf lands’. He also submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by suchentries, his remedy lies elsewhere and the writ petition would not lie.

The allegation that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not acted upon the Memoissued by the first respondent stands disproved. According to the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader, the claim of the petitioner was already rejected on 03-12-2005.If so advised, the petitioner may obtain a copy from the third respondent and fileappropriate appeal against the same. Unless and until his right under the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 is determined, he cannotseek Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands in survey Nos. 398,399, 409, 410, 411 and 579 of Malkajgiri village and mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. No costs.

____________

V.V.S. RAO, J

30-12-2005pvks/*