Telangana High Court
Gundlolu Uma vs The State Of Telangana on 5 January, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.220, 221, 222, 223, 231, 232, 233, 234,
235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247,
248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 AND
260 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(ORAL) Since common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, with the consent of the both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P. No.220 of 2024 is taken as a lead case for disposal of all these writ petitions.
3. W.P.No.220 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of respondent authorities in not taking steps to release the land admeasuring Acs.2400-00 guntas in Survey No.7 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioners, pursuant to the written representation of the petitioners dated 20.03.2023 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the entire land and deliver the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of plots to the petitioners.
2
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2, 7, 8, 10 to 15, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests for respondent Nos.3 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.4, and perused the material on record.
5. It is claimed that land admeasuring Acs.2400-00 guntas in Survey No.7 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e., subject land was kept under the custody of the Government as care taker by Mrs. Haneefa Bee W/o. Burhanuddin. The land was converted into plots of 100 Square yards each and allotted to the petitioners by legal heirs of Mrs. Haneefa Bee i.e., Md. Yousuf Khan and Mrs. Vasam Tulsamma by way of memorandum of gift executed in favour of petitioners. That originally, land admeasuring Acs.10,000-00 guntas was patta land and it was taken into custody of the Government in the year 1947. The patta of Mrs. Haneefa Bee is evidenced by Muntakhab and Sethwar No.1262/1352 Fasli.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the alleged proceedings in Ex.P5 under the Atiyat Enquiry Act. 3 The learned counsel referred to the English translation at page No.123 wherein it is stated:
"The Higher Government Authority by granting the ownership rights of the said land, to Haneefa Bee, W/o. Burhanuddin has been declared null and void about anybody's claim of right by nullifying the earlier and afterwards entire Muntakhab finished the proceedings on Muntakhab."
(The above English translation is not properly done)
7. It is submitted that Mrs. Haneefa Bee expired on 06.04.1998 leaving behind her family members as legal heirs. The Government authorities did not consider the representation of the Mr. Md. Yousuf Khan for conducting Survey, demarcation and fixing of boundary stones in respect of the subject land. Thereafter, Md. Yousuf Khan has filed W.P. No.32509 of 2010 and 9067 of 2011 before this Court. An order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to conduct Survey, demarcate and fix the boundary stones in Survey Nos.1 to 14 and 15 to 20. After such orders were passed, the revenue officials i.e., The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, issued notices for conducting survey vide Lr.Nos.A4/3062/2013 dated 02.09.2013 and A4/3062/2013 dated 17.09.2013.
4
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Muntakhab means sale deeds and according to the aforesaid Muntakhab and Sethwar, land belongs to Mrs. Haneefa Bee. The revenue officials have changed the entries in Pahanies which are contrary to the entries made in Sethwar. After Survey was conducted on 02.09.2013 and 17.09.2013 by the Government officials in the subject land, Mr. Yousuf Khan and his wife Mrs. Vasam Tulsamma gifted 100 Square yards each by executing memorandum of gift. In the above manner, more than fifty thousand (50,000) people were allotted 100 Square yards under memorandum of gift. Mr. Md. Yousuf Khan has made representation dated 26.02.2014 under Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish the certified copies of Sethwar and Wasool Baqui of Mansoorabad Village. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records has issued a Memo No.K3/762/2014 dated 22.03.2014 stating that Sethwar and Wasool Baqui of Mansoorabad Village are in torn condition.
9. It is also stated that petitioners have filed W.P. Nos.26934, 26979, 26986, 26989, 26991, 27008, 27015, 27061, 27125, 27133, 27135, 27136, 27138, 27149, 27153, 27194, 27343, 27346, 27358, 5 27373, 27375, 27377, 27379, 27572, 27787, 27790, 27802, 27857, 27945 and 28083 of 2018 which were disposed of on 30.08.2018 directing the petitioners to follow common law remedy by establishing their title and interest over the subject land.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are more than 50,000 people who have claim over the subject land and they belong to poorer sections of the society, many of them are handicapped, senior citizens, widows etc. It is submitted that when above referred writ petitions were heard, representation was made by learned Government Pleader that Government has leased out above land in the year 1954 to the Forest Department for a period of twenty five (25) years. Since then the land is in possession of the Forest Department. The lease period expired in the year 1979 and Forest Department is in illegal possession since 1979. The Forest Department has constructed a compound wall covering Acs.2400-00 guntas of land. Petitioners have approached several authorities including the then Finance Minister in the year 2021.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Government has accepted that the land belongs to Mrs. Haneefa 6 Bee and thus petitioners need not approach Civil Court. Petitioners are gift holders, they are landless poor and shelter less persons and are residing in rented houses and due to lack of permanent source of income, petitioners are not having any other alternative than to approach this Court.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests and Learned Assistant Government Pleader of Municipal Administration and Urban Development has taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and contended that petitioners do not have any locus standi to institute writ petition. There is no material on record to show that Survey No.7 admeasuring Acs.2400-00 guntas of Mansoorabad Village was owned by Mrs. Haneefa Bee and succeeded by her legal heirs Mr. Yousuf Khan and his wife Mrs. Vasam Tulsamma. It is further stated that the writ petitions earlier filed before this Court were dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that W.P. No.36226 of 2017 was filed by some of the petitioners which was disposed of by order dated 31.10.2017 directing respondent No.2 - 7 Sub Registrar, Saroornagar Mandal, therein to receive the documents presented by the petitioners for the purpose of registration, and consider the same, and if they do not wish to register it, pass orders under Section 71 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by giving reasons for refusal to register.
14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests has produced written instructions and submitted that subject land forms part of Mahavir Harina Vanasthali National Park which was declared as National Park under Section 35 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 vide G.O. Ms.No.208, Environment Forests, Science and Technology (FOR-III) Department dated 05.10.1994. The said G.O. covers an area of Acs.3605-20 guntas including the land in Survey No.6 and 7 of Mansoorabad Village. Land to an extent of Acs.51-17 guntas of Survey No.6 and land to an extent of Acs.582-17 guntas out of Acs.530-00 guntas is included in the National Park.
15. It is further submitted that Mrs. Haneefa Bee has never approached any of the respondent authorities and made any claim during her life time and neither her daughter, Mrs. Afzal Sultana. 8 It is further stated that Photostat copy of 4th Aban, 1336 Fasli (1926) is a fake and fabricated document. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also stated that the petitioners are silent as to under which statute subject, lands are taken into the custody of the Government. It is admitted case of petitioners that they are not in possession of the subject land.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on memorandum of gift deed (Ex.P25). It is clear from the contents of the gift deed that donors Mr. Yousuf Khan and his wife Mrs. Vasam Tulsamma alias Sultana were never in possession of the subject land. In fact, the clause 3 and 4 therein clearly state that the First Party/Donors shall deliver the possession of the said property to the Second Party/Donee as and when the cases are completed (dispute regarding the title is resolved and there is also reference to the W.P. Nos.29928 and 10100 of 2014 which are pending before this Court) and the First Party/Donors have no responsibility of the subject land. The Second Party/Donee has only responsibility of taking the possession of the land. 9
17. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners lack foundational claim. Even according to the petitioners their predecessors were not in possession of the subject land for the last seventy (70) years and that since 1947, the subject land had been in possession of the Government. It needs to be mentioned that the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act, 1973') came into force with effect from 01.01.1975. The persons who hold the land beyond the ceiling limit were required to file declaration under the provisions of the Act, 1973. It is stated that Mrs. Haneefa Bee was in possession of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2400-00 guntas. Prima facie, the holding of Acs.2400-00 guntas of land is beyond the ceiling limit and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1973. As pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleaders neither Mrs. Haneefa Bee nor her successors have filed any application for restoration of land. It is not stated under which law the subject land has been taken into Government custody. The pleadings of the petitioners did not throw any light on that subject. It is vaguely contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the custody of land was taken under the Atiyat Enquiry Act. It is not stated by the 10 petitioners as to why the original Smt. Haneefa Bee did not claim release of lands. There is no clarity as to who the appropriate statutory authority for releasing the lands and it is highly doubtful if the claim for release can be entertained after more than seventy (70) years of dispossession.
18. It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the alleged Muntakhab on which the petitioners are placing reliance is a fake and fabricated document. It is not that only alleged original owner Mrs. Haneefa Bee and her successors even the petitioners, do not have any semblance of right over the subject land. It is not stated as to how the petitioners can make a claim for release of land, when they do not have any title over the subject land.
19. As pointed out in the aforesaid paragraph, the donors/original owners of the petitioners were never in possession of the subject land. The question of transferring the land to the petitioners without possession and under alleged memorandum of gift deed is baseless. Such an alleged transfer without possession would not convey any title. Moreover, the attempt made by the 11 petitioners and others to seek relief in this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. Nos.26934 of 2018 and batch have been unsuccessful. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners therein to pursue Civil law remedy and without pursuing Civil law remedy, the petitioners have again approached this Court.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5779 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5730 of 2021). The facts of the said case do not have any bearing on the dispute involved in this writ petition.
21. In view of the same, petitioners do not have any locus standi to institute these writ petitions. There is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for allotment of 2 BHK houses and avail welfare schemes introduced by the Government. There shall be no order as to costs.
12As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 05.01.2024 MS/HFM