Telangana High Court
Nawab Mohammed Fakruddin Khan ... vs Principal Secretary Revenue on 5 February, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.482 of 2021
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of Telangana (1st respondent), the
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana
(2nd respondent) and the Special Chief Secretary (Union of India),
State of Telangana (3rd respondent) to release the maqtas mentioned
under item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule 'A' covered under the
judgment and decree dt.06-04-1959 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 in favour of
petitioner and also questioned inaction of these officials in not
disposing of petitioner's representations dt.01-07-2020 and
29-10-2020 in that regard.
2. According to the petitioner, certain private properties of
Asmanjahi Paigah called 'Arazi Maqthas' are subject matters of
preliminary decree dt.06-04-1959 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and these are
mentioned as item Nos.230 to 254 of schedule 'A' in the said decree.
3. Petitioner contends that these properties are in the custody of
the Government and were under enquiry with the Board of Revenue
of the then Government of Andhra Pradesh; and after abolition of
Board of Revenue, they are now under the control of the Chief
Commission of Land Administration, State of Telangana.
::2::
4. Petitioner also makes a reference to the order dt.16-08-2018 in
Contempt Appeal No.33 of 2017 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of
2018 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it is stated
that (i) the suit C.S.No.7 of 1958 was dismissed against the State
Government, (ii) there was no decree against the State Government
and (iii) that the lis between the owners and the Government was left
undecided and division of property in item No.234 was made subject
to the orders of Board of Revenue.
5. Petitioner therefore contends that the respondents have to
release the same in favour of the legal heirs of Moin-ud-Dowla
Bahadur, the original owner.
6. A perusal of the above order passed by the Division Bench
indicates the suit against the State Government was dismissed and
there was no decree against the State Government and 1st respondent
in the said case could not have executed the decree against the State
Government in Civil Court. It also observed that the State
Government was not bound to affect mutation in the Revenue records,
thereby forfeiting any claim that may have to the property.
7. We are of the opinion that having regard to the observations
made in the above order by the Division Bench, there is a serious
dispute of title between the State and the petitioner and other
claimants in C.S.No.7 of 1958. The said dispute was admittedly not
adjudicated in C.S.No. 7 of 1958.
::3::
8. In the affidavit filed in support this Writ Petition, petitioner has
not indicated how he is making a claim to the properties which are
subject matter of C.S.No.7 of 1958 against the State Government.
9. We are not expressing any opinion about the claim of either the
petitioner or the State Government to item Nos.232 to 254 of
Schedule 'A' of judgment and decree dt.06-04-1959 in C.S.No.7 of
1958 in the above circumstances. We do not think that it is proper for
us to decide these questions of title, which require evidence, in a Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate
remedy in an appropriate forum, if the petitioner seeks to recover
possession of the said items, this Writ Petition is dismissed at the
stage of admission. No costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
___________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 05-02-2021
Vsv
