Telangana High Court
Khazi Md. Khaleelurrahman vs The Government Of Telangana on 27 June, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.31877 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus, seeking the following reliefs:
(a) To declare the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Dept., Waqf-1 Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, is illegal, consequently to quash the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012.
(b) To direct the first respondent/Government of Telangana, to consider the representation dt.17.10.2023 of the petitioner in appointing him as Khazi to KhilaGhanpura and other Paraganas like Ghanpur, Kandoor, Yanmangandla, Avancha, Thatikonda, Badepalle, Kodagal, Lingumpet, Amarabad, thimmajimpeta, Rudraram, Sankalmaddi, Devarakadra, Jadcherla, Kalwakurthy etc., Paraganas of the then combined Mahabubnagar District, and pass orders as are fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. Heard Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents 1 and 2; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3; and Sri Shafath Ahmad Khan for respondent No.4.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the writ affidavit, is that the respondent No.4 is a third person and in no way connected to the Khaziship to Khila ghanpur and other paraganas; that during the lifetime 2 of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, his cousin Khazi Md. Abdul Rahman S/o Md Hassan, who is the great grandfather of petitioner have been rendering services of Khazayath of Khila Ghanpura paraganas with half share each; that Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin had no male lineal descendant and adopted Md. Omer who is daughter's son and as per Muslim personal law maternal grandson has no right over Khazayath. The respondent No.4 himself styled as Khazi filed a fake genealogy/family tree with the support of Abdul Rahman, by obtaining the names of his family members and relatives in the letter of the then District collector, dated 04.09.1997; that on the death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, the entire Khazayath and Khazi services fall on Khazi and Khazi services fall on Khazi Abdul Rahman S/o Md. Hassan, who was the male lineal descendant to Asaldar Khazi shaik Rafiuddin S/o Late Shaik Hassan; that as per partition deed, Khazi Abdul rahman was the half shareholder of Khazayat; that on the death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin as per Muslim law, the share of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin also fell to the petitioner's great grandfather late Khazi Abdul Rahman. These facts are supported by Munthaqab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli and Munthaqab No.4846 of 1310 Fasli. It is also relevant to state that the then District Collector in file No.B2/8597/1995 dated 17.09.1997 also conducted that the petitioner and hs brothers are the Successors-in-interest and are the legal heirs to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o late Shaik Hassan, however the then District Collector 3 incorrectly came to the conclusion that Md. Qutubuddin and gulam Mohiuddin are equal shareholders; that the 4th respondent mislead the Government and filed fake documents and illegally got appointed as Khazi, and sold away the lands connected to Khazayath services and created third party interests, and they obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, but all the Inams in Telangana ought to have been dealt with under the TelanganaInams Abolition Act only and then pattas ought tohave ben granted in the names of Successors-in-interest; that the genealogy filed with the writ petition would establish the real successors- in interest of Khazi; that the 4th respondent is an imposter and obtained GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and committed several illegalities; that in his representation to Principal Secretary, he stated his name as Khazi Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o Khazi Ahmed Mohiuddin; and filed WP No.25616 of 1998 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 11.09.1998 against which W.A.No.1526 of 1998 was filed and same was dismissed on 21.09.1998; that as per the election card, the 4th respondent is named as Khazi Syed Ghouse, now the present name is Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Shah Kadari S/o Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin and he filed various fake documents from the office of Tahsildar, RDO and Office of District Collector and managed to see that he was appointed as Khazi under Section 2 of Khazi Act and he does not belong to Khazi family; that in the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 it is stated that the 4 then District Collector is said to have recommended the 4th respondent/Syed ghouse Mohiuddin on the alleged reports which are not legally correct, and no Mohammedan of the paraganas have issued any application to recommend the then District Collector to appoint 4th respondent/Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin as Khazi of Khila ghanpur paraganas; that the true purport of Section 2 of Khazis Act stipulates that the Government must make an enquiry with local considerable number of Mohammadans in the villages which are within Khila Ghanpur whereas the 4th respondent obtained letters from the Minister for Minorities Welfare, MLAs and MPs; that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in his letter dated 17.09.1997 clearly stated that as per Memo dated 10.04.1995, in Telangana Region, Office of Khaziship is hereditary succession, but in GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012, the government opined that Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880 must be applied; that on scrupulous reading of above section, Section 2 of the Khazis Act gets applied to places where original male lineal descendants / successors-in-interest / legal heirs are not available; that under a D.O. Letter dated 05.11.1998 the then Principal Secretary to government, Minorities Welfare Department, addressed a letter to the then District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, wherein it was sought to make necessary enquiry under Section 2 of Khazis Act, regarding the appointment of Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin, S/o Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin; 5 that through this letter, the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate addressed a letter to the RDO, Mahabubnagar through D.O.Letter dated 16.11.1998 wherein the DRO asked the RDO Mahabubnagar to make enquiry under Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880, and that letter was also addressed to the RDO, Nagarkurnool and RDO, Wanaparthy; that in reply to the D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998, the RDO Mahabubnagar did not make enquiry correctly and is relied on the incorrect representations of 4th respondent / Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin, and suddenly came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent is hereditary successor to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin s/o Shaik Hassan; that the Munthakab Nos.3846 and 4846 of 1310 Fasli equal to 1990 AD belong to the petitioners and 3 others ancestors, does not belong to 4th respondent; that the enquiry by the then RDO Mahabubnagar in file bearing No.K/2230/1997 dated 22.04.1999 is against the truth and basic documents issued by the then Hon'ble Revenue Minister and Chief Justice of Ecclesiastical Court; that the Chief Justice issued Sanad in Athiyath Branch II as Faisalnama which belonged to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o ShaikHasan; that the above said Sanad Munthakab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli equal to 1900 AD was prepared by the then Nizam Government; that in this judgment only the names of late Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin S/o late Khazi MdKhasim and late Khazi Md Abdul Rahman S/o late Khazi Md Hasan were recorded 6 but the 4th respondent made use of above Muthakhabs as if the Asaldar Khazi was his ancestor; that late Khazi Md. Abdul Rahman S/o late Khazi Md. Hasan is no other than great grandfather of the petitioner and three others; that it is un-understandable how RDO, Mahabubnagar suddenly concluded that this 4th respondent/Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin is the successor-in interest in order to have hereditary succession to him; that it can be safely be concluded that the RDO, Mahabubnagar in file No.K/2230/1997 dated 22.04.1999 no correct enquiry was made; that in reply to D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998 addressed by the then DRO, Mahabubnagar, the RDO, Nagarkurnool in his letter dated 06.03.1999 and dated 19.12.1998 unfortunately relied on the misleading information furnished by 4th respondent regarding the documents and genealogy; that RDO, Nagarkurnool suddenly concluded that 4th respondent is the hereditary successor; that the RDO, Wanaparthy also committed error in relying on the misinformation and fake documents filed by 4th respondent and concluded that 4th respondent is the hereditary successor, and thus the very purpose of letter of the then Principal Secretary to Government, MW Dept., D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998 was defeated and no purpose was served; that all the RDOs of Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool and Wanaparthy gave incorrect reports and that they could not find out real successors-in-interest and male lineal descendants of Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that based on above reports of RDOs 7 the then District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in his letter dated 28.06.1999 gave incorrect report to the Secretary to Govt., MW Dept., the 4th respondent entered into Government records and became permanent Khazi under GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012; that the 4th respondent obtained a fake residential certificate on which date is not specified from the Sarpanch, Thimmajipet, he is the resident of Thimmajipet; that he obtained letters from Minister of Medical and Health Family Welfare and several others; that it is to note that in all the letters addressed to the Principal Secretary to Govt. MW Dept., AP Secretariat in which the subject is MW Dept., Khazayath, appointment of Khazi to Ghanpur and other Paraganas and quoted the D.O. letter dated 05.11.1998; that it is to be noted that some of the persons who issued the letters recommending 4th respondent are not Mohammadams/Musalmans; that all those people did not know the proceedings of D.O. letter dated 05.11.1998; that he himself got the letters typed out by taking the above institutions letter pads and obtained their signatures who signed them unknowingly the true purport of Section 2 of Khazi Act and issued the letters to please 4th respondent herein; that Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880 stipulates that the opinions of local independent impartial Mohammadams must give affidavits or statements by recommending the appointment of Khazi or the Government on its own must ask the local Mohammadans to know the need of appointment of Khazi; that the Section 2 of the Khazis Act 8 gets applied to the areas where there is no availability of Asaldar Khazis or hereditary Khazis; that the aim and intention and true purport of Section 2 of Khazis Act is defeated; that as per GOMs No.276 dated 11.03.1986 the appointment of Khazi in Telangana State is hereditary; that Section 2 of Khazis Act is also violated insofar as the consultation of local Mohammadans, the Government ought to have asked the Mohammadans of residents of paraganas; whereas 4th respondent obtained above stated letters from the Heads of Institutions in order to exhibit is capacity to obtain letters from the Minister for Minorities Welfare and Member of Parliament etc.; that 4th respondent and another obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of Survey Nos.37, 38, 42, 43, 233, 234 and etc., of lands situated in Eppalapalli, Marepalli, Narellapalli, Edirepalli, thimmajipet etc., in file bearing No.2750/1998 dated 01.05.1999 of Tahsildar/MRO Thimmajipeta; though the said lands are KhairathiInam lands, ought to have been converted into private patta lands under Inams Abolition Act, 1955, and its Rules, 1975; pattas are issued directly under the ROR Act 1971 and its Rules 1989; that the petitioner filed an application under RTI Act to get the proceedings of the then RDO Nagarkurnool in proceedings No.1/3253/1998 dated 23.04.1999; that it is revealed on verification of the record room of RDO, Nagarkurnool, that there is no such file bearing No.1/3253/1998 dated 23.04.1999, the copy of which is submitted; that 4th respondent is found 9 guilty of misconduct of his office andis punishable for removal from Khaziship by cancelling GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012; thus 4th respondent sold out the above said lands to various persons by creating third party interests in Mafilnam/KhairathiInam land to which the petitioner and 4 others are the successors-in-interest/lineal descendants; that in file No.B2/8597/1995 dated 17.09.1997, the non-hereditary sucessors names at page No.8, at column No.5 are shown; that under the guise of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012, the 4th respondent sold out several lands left and right and at his own will and pleasure in various paraganas of Khila Ghanapur, Mahabubnagar District and under the guise of Government Khazi, and on this ground alone this GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 can be cancelled and 4th respondent can be removed from Khaziship; that the truth is that for all these paraganas of Khila Ghanpur, Mahabubnagar, the Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and incorporated the names of various third parties' names; the record borne facts establish that all paraganas of Khila Ghanpur, Mahabubnagar District, is Inampatta land which was conferred to ShaikRafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan, very long ago; for succession to the lands only the petitioner and others are male lineal descendants and legal heirs who filed applications for grant of ORC; that it is unknown why the competent RDOs of Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool, Wanaparthy did not object as to giving of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued 10 by Tahsildars of concerned paraganas; that any inam land in Telangana area on the advent of Inams Abolition Act ought to have been converted by the grant of ORC by the competent RDO only and then only the land gets converted into private patta land and names of original owners can be updated in Dharani portal; that the 4th respondent and Md. Saleem, Md. Azeem, Md. Shabbir, Md. Faheem are sons of Khaja Moinuddin, Sharfuddin, Rafiuddin, Tajuddin, Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o Ahmed Mohiuddin, Burhauddin, Nooruddin, Nazeeruddin, Nazeemuddin, Basheeruddin are sons of Ahmed Mohiuddin and Gulam Mohiuddin and Nizar Mohiuddin are sons of Miskin Mohiuddin feeling themselves as Khazis under the guise of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 sold various lands and created third party interests at their own will and pleasure; that the Inam Abolition Act stipulates that in spite of sales by third parties and purchasing by third parties, right title and interest and possession to those third parties did not accrue; that petitioner and others are direct blood related male lineal descendants and legal heirs among whom Md. Khaleel-ur-Rahman passed Khazi test and is legally hereditarily entitled for appointment as Khazi, either GOMs No.244 dated 20.12.1999 are even in GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 the original succession had not been filed but only fake successors genealogy had been given to the office of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar who erred and was mislead by Abdul Rahman and also 4th respondent; that 11 the original Munthakab No.3846 and 4846, partition deed 1283 Hizri equal to 1867 AD are with petitioner and others herein; several documents prepared by the then Inam Commissioner Rasool Yar Khan, Chief Judge, Ecclessiastical Court judgment Branch II establish that only the petitioner and others herein are the original successors-in-interest; that it is noteworthy to observe that when the Thasildar, Thimmajipet, in his letter bearing No.J/2999/1995, dated 26.08.1995, addressed to the then RDO, Nagarkurnool, the name of 4th respondent is not found place; From J/2999/1995 dated 26.08.1995, the RDO, Nagarkurnool, in his letter bearing No.1/1665/88 dated 02.01.1996 quoting the above enquiry of the Tahsildar, Thimmajipet, addressed this letter to the then District Collector, Mahbubnagar; that in this letter also the name of 4th respondent is not found place; that the word "Syed" is not used to any one of the legal heirs of Asaldar Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that it is a significant fact that all of a sudden in the letter bearing No.B2/8597/19985 dated 17.09.1997 the names of Sharfuddin, Rahimuddin, Tajuddin, Ghouse Mohiuddin, Burhauddin, Nooruddin, Nazeeruddin, Nazamuddin, Basheeruddin are sons of Ahmed Mohiuddin Gulam Mohiuddin and Nissar Mohiuddin are sons of Miskin Mohiuddin had been included as if though they are not successors-in-interest of Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that Mohammad Saleem, Mohammad Azeem, Mohammed Shabbir, Mohammed Faheem all 12 are sons of Khaja Moinuddin, had been cropped up on the basis of self- created partition deed and self-created affidavit filed by this 4th respondent; that this affidavit dated 28.05.1997 or even partition deed/family settlement deed dated 30.07.1998 are fake; that this family settlement deed is undated in the last page of the settlement deed, the left hand thumb impression and signatures of various persons are obtained on blank paper and they are not shown in each page; that the petitioner obtained certified copies of all Muthakabs, Sanads, partition deeds etc., from the Office of State Archives which are the judgments of the then Board of Revenue, Athiyyat Branch II; that these documents had been prepared by the then Nizam government officials and a detailed Inam enquiry had been conducted by the then Inam commissioner Rasool Yar Khan; that this 4th respondent is totally a third party and by submitting fake/fabricated documents by making fake claim and by submitting the recommendation letters from MP, MLA, Minister for Minorities Welfare and got the correspondence made in his favour from Tahsildars or RDOs; that he is a cheater; that as to filing of various fake documents before the officers, in District Collectorate, Mahabubnagar and other officers, the petitioner is instituting cases before criminal Court; that on the representations by the petitioners and others, the Government of Telangana, Minority Welfare (Estt-I) Department in their Memo Nos. dated 12.10.2021 and 01.04.2022 and several memos 13 directed the lower officers to submit detailed report by Secretary to Government, but no action was taken; that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in his letter addressed to Principal Secretary to Government, Minority Welfare Department, stated that the matter is already sub-judice before this Court and there are no complaints against 4th respondent, as such District Collector found fault with petitioner and others stating that the petitioners and others suppressed material facts and filed representations and asked to reject the applications; that the appointment of 4th respondent under GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 must be cancelled; that the petitioner is eligible for appointment of Khaziship either under successors-in-interest of original Asaldar Khazi by name late Shaik Rafiuddin or even under Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880; that the manner in which 4th respondent mislead the District Collectors in representation dated 24.05.2023 stating various writ petitions are pending before this Court, but the truth is several miscellaneous petitions were filed to expedite WP No.21114 of 2014 filed by Shaik Jilani and those applications were shown by 4th respondent as separate writ petitions; that the 4th respondent mislead the Government by filing fake genealogy and managed to get Khaziship and misused his post and when the petitioners and others filed representations before the District Collector, the District Collector incorrectly opined that the petitioners contention for appointment of Khaziship is incorrect; that the letter of 14 District Collector Mahabubnagar addressed to all the District Collectors which come under area of Khaziyat of SarkarkhilaGhanpur as per Muntakab No.3846 and 4846 of 1310 Fasli equal to 1900 AD, and this misleading information is only on account of cheating by 4th respondent and therefore the G.O.Ms.86 dated 27.09.2012 requires to be quashed in the interest of justice.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner filed an application dated 17.10.2023 with the Government stating that he is hereditary successor as per family pedigree, they are Muntakhab holders No.3846 and 4846 of certain KhairatiInam lands and are original successor-in-interest and requested the Government to order a thorough enquiry into the appointment of 4th respondent as Khazi to cancel GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and appoint him as Khazi for Qila Ghanpur and other patties. It is stated that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar submitted his report stating that petitioner filed representation dated 10.11.2021 stating that they are from Khazi families of Sarkar Qilaghanpur (B. Paraganas) they got succession certificate through City Civil Court in OS No.1516 of 2010, and they filed WP No.22405 of 2013 before this Court with a request to consider their representation; that Khazi Sri Md. Abdul Rahman died and post is vacant and requested to consider their representation to appoint as Sadar Khazi 15 of Sarkar Qila Ghanpur. It is stated that this Court while disposing of WP No.22405 of 2013 directed the Government to pass appropriate orders on the applications of the petitioner within a period of two months, and in compliance of the orders, the Government after careful consideration rejected the petitioner's representation mentioning that as per Section 2 of Khazi Act, 1880, the State Government may, if it think fit, after consulting Principal Mohammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him/them to be Khazi or Khais for such local areas, Mohammedan Law does not regard the Office of Khazi as hereditary. It is stated that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar again reported vide letter dated 20.03.2023 stating that the Government vide Memo dated 03.05.2014 already rejected the request of Mohd Hussian, MA Aziz, Mohd Abdul Raheem, Mohd Khaleelur Rahman and Mohd Waheedur Rahman for their appointment as Government Khazi on hereditary basis to Sarkar Qila Ghanpur and other patties of Mahabubnagar District, and that petitioner filed WP No.21114 of 2014 before this Court with interlocutory applications and the petitioner has been repeatedly filing representation to the Government with the same plea without waiting for final judgment by this Court; that based on the enquiry report of District Collector, Mahabubnagar dated 22.01.2022, the Government vide Memo dated 24.02.2022 once again rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment as Khazis; and that in reply to 16 paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7, 32, 33, 36 and 39 of the writ affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner claiming that subject Qazzath is attached with KhairathiInam lands which were freely conferred by the then Nizam Government for the purpose of Qazzath Services and the attached landsin various survey numbers have been given to Asaldar Khazi Rafiuddin, the ancestor of petitioner and his brothers who are the successors-in-interest and legal heirs of above Asaldar Khazi; that the petitioner's case pertains to Atiyat Court wherein succession issue is involved and involving Waqf lands and object of Waqf is for rendering the services of Qazzath; that the petitioner is supposed to approach the RDO Mahabubnagar, in this matter being the succession issue by virtue of Munthaqab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli and Muthaqab No.4846 of 1310 Fasli respectively as the RDO is the competent authority to decide his case under Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952; that in reply to para 8, it is further submitted that the petitioner has to approach the Telangana State Waqf Board for the protection, alienation and encroachment of Khairathi Inam lands as alleged in para 6 of the writ petition; that the respondent is not dealing with the subject of AP (TA) Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952, because the Government only deals with appointment under the Khazis Act, 1880 not by Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952 and petitioner's case pertains to Atiyath Enquiries Act as succession matter may involve therein; that Section 1 of Khazis Act, 1880 deals with applicability of the Act; that the 17 Government after careful examination of the enquiry report of District Collector, Mahabubnagar that the 4th respondent was appointed to act as Government Khazi on tenure basis in GOMs.No.244 dated 20.12.1999; he was attacked with paralysis and unable to walk or talk on his own and he was bed ridden; thus he was removed from duties of Government Khazi with immediate effect and the respondent No.3 Ghouse who is also appointed to act as Government Khazi on tenure basis for Sarkar Ghanpur and other patties was hereby appointed on regular basis with immediate effect to perform marriages and other religious ceremonies in Muslim community vide GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012; that in reply to para 16, 26 and 28, it is stated that requirement under Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880 of consultation with Principal Mohammedan of local area, the area being specified in the Schedule has been fulfilled; that the request of petitioner for appointment as Government Khazi was already rejected by the 2nd respondent vide Government Memo dated 03.05.2014 and 24.02.2022 and it was not feasible for consideration and he suppressed real facts and misguided the officials as their petition was already rejected by Government.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4. The sum and substance of the counter is that the concept of succession by means of hereditary to inherit the post of Khazi as successor in interest of Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin is not valid and legally not sustainable in view of 18 the fact that the Government of Hyderabad published in the Gazette notification dated 03.08.1954 that Kazis Act 1880 shall extend to whole of Hyderabad city; that the genealogy or family tree is not applicable in the matter of appointment of Khazi, as either Mohammedan law or Kazi Act has not recognized the hereditary concept of appointment of Khazi; the claim of petitioner that respondent No.4 did not belong to family pedigree is baseless; that the petitioner has alternative remedy available under relevant provision of law to agitate the matter before appropriate authority; that respondent No.4 was appointed vide GOMs No.86 of 2012 dated 27.09.2012 on the basis of eligibility and competency and invoking Section 2 of Kazi Act and following due process of law after due enquiry; that the act of petitioner in keeping silent for more than 12 years of appointment of respondent No.4 as Khazi without challenging the same is hit by doctrine of estoppel by conduct; that after publication of notification in the year 1954 dated 03.08.1954, the Kazi Act, 1880 is alone applicable and it is not concerned if applicants are male lineal descendants of Khazi late Rafiuddin in view of application of Kazi Act after 1954; that there is no need for respondent No.4 to produce fake residential certificate and that he belongs to Ghanpur paragana in Mahabubnagar District; that the Muntakhab issued by erstwhile Nizam Government has no legal validity after issuance of Gazette notification I the year 1954 dated 03.08.1954 adopting Kazi Act for State ofHyderabad; 19 that Section 2 of the Kazi Act clearly laid down that the appointment shall have to be made base on the demand and desire of local Mohammadans of the area but hereditary concept is neither recognized by Mohammadan law nor by Kazi Act; that the Dsitrict Collector, Mahabubnagar conducted enquiry and submitted detailed report to the 1st respondent; that the 1st respondent issued Memo dated 24.02.2022 by rejecting the application of petitioner; that the writ petition is filed after a delay of 12 years challenging the GOMs No.86 of 2012 dated 27.09.2012 through which the respondent No.4 was appointed as Khazi and there is no survival of cause of action at present and the petitioner failed to plea any question of law.
6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner inter alia contending that the issuance of Government Memo dated 03.05.2014 itself is illegal and rejecting the claim of petitioner is illegal; that the rejection of petitioner's case by the District Collecto vide Memo dated 24.02.2022 is illegal; that the lands were sold by respondent No.4 under sale deed document No.4668 of 2005 and it is a serious misconduct and therefore the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 needs to be quashed; that the lands are Khairathi Inam lands given freely to Asaldar Khazi for Khazayath services; that the Telangana Waqf Board is no way connected to Khairathi Inam lands; that without understanding the purport of Section 2 of the Kazi Act, respondent No.4 was appointed; that the Government 20 obtained 21 unrelated recommendations from Minister for Minorities Welfare, MLAs and MPs and several other Hindus also; that this Court in 1991(1) An.WR 596 held that the office of Khazi is hereditary one to which inams are attached; that as per Hyderabad Government Gazette notification dated 03.08.1954, the Khazi is appointed as per Section 2 of Kazi Act, but the truth is the Gazette notification could not foresee or contemplate the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955; that under Inams Act, 1955, only eligible persons from Section 4 to 8 are entitled for grant of ORC, in the lands attached to Khazayath service of Sarkar Khila Ghanpur and other 8 paraganas, only Inamdars, the petitioner is one of them under Section 4 of the Act; that respondent No.4 is a unconnected and a third party to the inam lands attached to Khazayath service; that it is correct to appoint the petitioner as Khazi to Sarkar Khila Ghanpur and other parganas and to see that service inam lands are converted through the successors-in-interest as settled by this Court in 2023(1) ALT 83 FB (TS); that the petitioner gave proper reply to the Government Memo dated 03.05.2014; that the prayer of WP No.21114 of 2014 is different from the present writ petition; that the petitioner has been agitating this grievance since 2010 and therefore the ground that the writ petition was filed after lapse of 12 years is not tenable; and that respondent No.4 is committing illegalities by selling the lands which is serious misconduct and the 21 Government is empowered to remove him and therefore the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 is illegal and therefore the same may be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and reply affidavit would primarily contend that rejection of petitioner's application for appointment as Kazi is illegal, and the respondent No.4 appointment is illegal as Section 2 of the Kazi At is violated, and respondent No.4 is committing irregularities by selling of the Kazayath lands and that is a misconduct and therefore the 1st respondent is empowered to remove him from the post; and the petitioner has been agitating his grievance since 2010 and hence the plea that the writ petition is filed after a lapse of 12 years is not tenable and therefore the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 is liable to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 would primarily submit that respondent No.4 was appointed after due enquiry by the District Collector after consulting the local Mohammadans of the area and respondent No.4 is eligible for appointment and the concept of heredity in appointment of Kazi is not contemplated under the Kazi Act, 1880 and the allegations that respondent No.4 is selling away the lands of Kazayath is baseless and the 1st respondent after considering the application and enquiry rejected the application of petitioner for 22 appointment as Kazi and therefore there is no illegality in GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and hence there is no merit in the writ petition.
9. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 while drawing attention to various averments in their counter affidavit would inter alia contend that the Government after careful examination and enquiry on the application of the petitioner for appointment as Kazi of QilaGhanpur and other paraganas, rejected his application and the appointment of respondent No.4 was done after due enquiry and consultation from local Mohammadans of the area and therefore the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
10. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the material on record, it is relevant to extract Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 which reads as under:
"Section 2: Power to appoint Kazis for any local area.
Wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Ka'zi's should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Ka'zi's for such local area.
If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Ka'zi' under this section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive.23
The State Government may, if it thinks fit, suspend or remove any Ka'zi' appointed under this section who is guilty of any misconduct in the execution of his office, or who is for a continuous period of six months absent from the local area for which he is appointed, or leaves such local area for the purpose of residing elsewhere, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the office, or who refuses or becomes in the opinion of the State Government unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office."
11. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 has been functioning as Kazi since 2012 vide GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012. Further, as per paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.1:
"7. It is submitted that, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar submitted his report stating among others vide letter dated Nil, that petitioner filed representation dated 10.11.2021, stating thaty are from Khazi families of SarkarQilaghanpur (8 Paraganas), they got Succession Certificate through City Civil Court in O.S.No.1516/2010. Further, they filed W.P.No.22405/2013 in the Hon'ble High Court with a request to consider their representation. The petitioner further stated that, Khazi Sri Md. Abdul Rahman died and post is vacant and requested to consider their representation to appoint as Sadar Khazi of Sarkar Qila ghanpur. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court while disposing W.P.no.22405/2013, directed the then Government to pass appropriate orders on the applications of the petitioner within a period of (2) months. In compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 07.09.2013, the Government after careful examination of the matter for appointment of Sadar Khazi to Sarkar Qila Ghanpur the representation of the petitioner was Rejected specifically mentioned that "as per Section-2 of Khazis Act, 1880 the State 24 Government may, if it think fit, after consulting the Principal Mohammedan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him/them to be Khazi or Khazis for such local area, Mohammedan Law does not regard the Office of Khazi as hereditary. Claim to such right though supported by customs, is not one that can be recognized by a Civil Court, for fixed term as the Office of Khazi is not hereditary". Further as per G.O.Ms.86, dated 27.09.2012, Sri GhouseMohiuddin was appointed as Government Khazi by then Government on regular basis for Sarkar Qila Ghanpur and other patties of Mahabubnagar District. The said Khazi is discharging his duties for the above Qazzath without any complaint. Subsequently the applications filed by Sri Khaleelur Rahman and (2) others dated 10.11.2021 suppressed the real facts and misguided the officials as their petition was already Rejected by the then Government vide Memo No.5406/IDM/A/2013, dated 03.05.2014."
12. Further, with regard to the application of the petitioner before 1st respondent, it is not in dispute that the appointment of Kazi is governed by the Kazis Act, 1880, and Section 2 of the Kazis Act extracted above details the process followed for appointment, and it is the specific stand of 1st respondent basing on the report of the District Collector that the process as contemplated under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 has been followed by consulting the local area Mohammedans and accordingly respondent No.4 was appointed.
13. Further, in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit of 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has considered the request of the petitioner for appointment of Govt. Khazi to Qila ghanpur and other patties and the 25 same was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide Govt. Memo No.5406/IDM/A1/2013, dated 03.05.2014 and Govt.Memo No.3679/Estt.I/2021-2, dated 24.02.2022, and that it was not feasible for consideration and that the petitioner suppressed the real facts and misguided the officials as their petition was already rejected by the Government.
14. Further, it is to be noted that the contention of the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ affidavit that Section 2 of the Kazis Act relates to original male lineal descendants/successors in interest/legal heirs cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that no such consideration or procedure is contemplated under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. Further, the writ petition was filed after 12 years of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 27.09.2012, and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities and file appropriate application about selling of land by respondent No.4, and on such representation, the respondents are directed to examine the same after giving appropriate notice to the concerned parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks of such representation. 26
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 27th June, 2024 ksm