N.M Azizuddin Khan, vs The State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2110 Tel

Item No.11

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                          W.A.No.294 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated

30.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.7668 of 2021 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner seeking the

following relief:

             "...to issue a Writ, Order, direction more particularly
          in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Registered Sale
          Deed Document bearing No 898/1979 Dated 14/05/1979
          and its Rectification Deed Document bearing No
          6489/1982 Dated 14/08/1982 quietly executed by the
          Respondent No.3 in favour of the Respondent Nos.4 to 7

before the Respondent No.2 as NULL AND VOID, violation of existing Law of this State prescribed under Section No.6 of the Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act 1952, which specifically prohibited for alienation or transferred or encumbrance of Atiyat grant in any a manner or to any extent or portion thereof, violation of Section No.15(3) of Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Rules, 1952, hits by final Judgment in rem that is Muntakhab No.3 Dated 14/02/1983 (title document) in respect of Petitioner's land Acres 3.19 guntas situated in Survey No.204 are part/parcel lands of Shamshabad village, covered by Item No.1 mentioned along with Serial No.294 of the Gazette Notification listed in Appendix G of said Muntakhab and violation of Section No.13(1) of Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 violation of Section 22A 1 a of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and wholly arbitrary and unjust and violative of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders forthwith and

pass such other order or orders as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned

order on two counts. Firstly, the claim of the petitioner itself is stale,

as he has not taken any legal recourse in respect of his grievance for a

period spreading over four decades and nor is there any averment in

the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner took any steps to

protect the subject property over this duration. In fact, the writ

petitioner seeks setting aside of a sale transaction conducted about 40

years ago, in the year 1979. Secondly, it has been observed that

assuming that the writ petitioner overcomes the hurdle of explaining

the inordinate delay, it is apparent from the petition that he has raised

disputed questions of fact and under the garb of filing the writ

petition, seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale documents

registered in respect of the subject premises on 14.05.1979 are invalid,

on the plea that the vendor never possessed the title for passing on the

same to the vendee. Noting that all the said averments would require

the court to examine the claim of ownership, the manner in which the

sale transaction had taken place in the year 1979 and would require

evidence to be brought on record, the court has declined to exercise its

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. At the outset, we have requested learned counsel for the

appellant/writ petitioner to point out the documents placed on record

showing any correspondence made by his client with the respondent

authorities in respect of the subject registered sale deed from the year

1979, till the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., 28.04.2021.

Learned counsel concedes that there has been no correspondence

exchanged between the appellant and the respondents over the past 40

years in respect of the title of the subject land.

He however asserts that the appellant was unaware of the very

existence of the subject sale deed till March, 2021 when he obtained a

certified copy of the said document. All kinds of untenable excuses

are sought to be offered to explain the inaction on the part of the

appellant in seeking appropriate and timely legal recourse and none of

the explanations are based on any legal submission.

4. Quite clearly, the appellant/writ petitioner is raising disputed

questions of fact in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India in respect of relief, which is patently stale, apparently to

overcome the bar of limitation that would stare him in his face if he

would have instituted a civil suit. Even otherwise, all the points

sought to be urged in the writ petition are based on facts, which are

mostly in the realm of disputed questions of fact relating to

cancellation of a document registered by the official respondents as

long back in the year 1979.

5. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. In fact,

this court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is a

gross abuse of the process of law.

6. The present appeal is dismissed in limine along with the

pending applications, if any, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten

thousand only) to be deposited by the appellant/writ petitioner with

the Telangana Bar Association within two weeks, for spending the

same on the welfare of COVID affected Lawyers.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

15.07.2021 Lrkm