Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana, Hyderabad vs Mir Jaffar Ali Khan, Hyderabad 3 ... on 20 January, 2023

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                     C.R.P. No. 417 of 2017

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the State of

Telangana, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed

in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The Board of Revenue through its order in letter

No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953 allotted an extent of Ac.570.00

Guntas of land including Ac.102.00 Guntas of land from out of

total extent of Ac.770.27 Guntas in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar

Kalan village to the Forest Department for establishment of Soil

Conservation Research Centre. Respondents 1 to 3 herein

claiming to be the Legal Representatives/successors of Salar

Jung-III filed a claim petition on 30.11.2005 before the Forest

Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, explaining the reasons for the

delay in submitting the claim petition against the notification

under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, in respect of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Gurramguda Forest Block, that it is a private property of Salar

Jung-III as per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri and Jagir

Administrator, Hyderabad and Letter No.808/CH, dated

24.04.1954 releasing Sahebnagar Kalan village lands from

integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate and as such the land to

an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan

village may be excluded from the said notification. Considering

the material available on record, the Forest Settlement Officer

allowed the claim by an order, dated 15.10.2014, requesting the

Divisional Forest Officer to exclude the said land from

notification of Gurramguda Forest Block. Aggrieved by the said

order, the Government preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and the

same was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District vide judgment dated 23.09.2016. Against the said

judgment, the State of Telangana preferred the present revision

petition.

3. It is a long drawn litigation between the State Government

and the claimants in different Forums and authorities.

Therefore, I find it reasonable to narrate the facts in brief.

PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

4. Initially, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, vide

proceedings No.B/1428/71 dated 03.09.2010 stated that in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the Andhra

Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, the Government through

G.O.Ms.No.772, Food and Agriculture (Forest-III), dated

18.06.1971 declared an area of Ac.102.00 Guntas situated in

Sahebnagar Kalan village, Hayathnagar Mandal, as Reserve

Forest and the same was published in District Gazette vide

Letter No.1428/B/71 dated 10.01.1971, District Gazette No.15

dated 26.07.1971 and also published in the Andhra Pradesh

Gazette No.23-C dated 12.08.1971. Proclamation under Section 6

of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 for the proposed Gurram

Guda Reserve Forest Block was published in the District Gazette

No.1 dated 05.01.1972 and also published on the Notice Board of

Ibrahimpatnam Tahasil Office as certified by the Tahsildar,

Ibrahimpatnam in his Ref.No. LDis.A4/949/71 dated 18.12.1971.

As per the Survey Settlement Record, Ranga Reddy District, it is

evident that the land bearing Sy.No.201, Sahebnagar Kalan

village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy is recorded as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Kancha Poramboke Sarkari. The then Forest Settlement Officer,

Hyderabad, has prepared the proposals under Section 15 of

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and submitted to the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for verification and onward

transmission to the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad vide his

Letter No.B/1428/1970 dated 20.12.2004 and the same has been

approved by the District Collector and transmitted to the Forest

Department, Hyderabad vide Letter No.E4/8097/2008 dated

02.03.2008 for necessary action. As per Form-I and II of Section

15 proposals, it was evident that no such claims were pending in

the Forest Block and no patta lands were included in

Gurramguda Reserve Forest Block.

5. One Mir Jafar Ali Khan (Respondent No.1 herein) and

others filed a claim petition on 02.12.2006 stating that as per the

judgment in O.S.No.156 of 1980 dated 12.10.2004 on the file of

the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they are successors of late

Salarjung-III and as such they claim to have rights over the land

bearing Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.102.00 Guntas in Sahebnagar

Kalan village, which was included in the Forest Block of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Gurramguda and hence requested for exclusion of their patta

land from the Forest Block of Gurramguda in the light of certain

judicial orders. On scrutiny of revenue records, it was observed

that in the year 1953 the then Secretary Board of Revenue

transferred an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas to Forest Department

in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village of Hayathnagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District against Ac.770.27 Guntas. The pahani for

the year 1976-77 shows that the balance Ac.200.00 in Sy.No.201

of Sahebnagar village was not transferred to Forest Department

as it was under occupation of the Harijans (assignees) since long

time as they were doing cultivation. Since the area under

occupation of assignees and others was located exactly in the

centre of Sahebnagar Forest Block, it was divided into two bits

viz., Sahebnagar Forest Block and Gurramguda Forest Block and

as such an extent of Ac.570.00 was shown out of Sy.No.201 of

Sahebnagar Kalan village of Hayathnagar Mandal for the year

1961-62 is under the possession of Forest Department. As per

the report of the then Patwari of Sahebnagar village dated

29.05.1975, there is no entry of Sy.No.201/1 in the village pahani PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

of Sahebnagar village. The entire Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar

village admeasures Ac.770.27 Guntas and it comes under

"Dastagardhan" (Inam land). The village was also called as

Salar Jung Estate village. The remaining extent of Ac.570.27

Guntas is under the possession and control of Forest Department

and there is no cultivation in the said area. The Deputy Collector

and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, vide Letter No.C/13845/07 dated

16.02.2008 based on revenue records, stated that as per the

pahani for the year 1975-76 an extent of Ac.770.27 in Sy.No.201 of

Sahebnagar Kalan village of Hayathnagar Mandal, is classified

as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar column, it was

recorded as Salarjung Sarkari. As per the pahani for the year

1980-81, Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was classified as

Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar column, it was

recorded as Arazi Maktha Salarjung Sarkari. But, in the

corresponding changes in the pattedar column, there is no

reference of any orders issued either by the then District

Collector, Ranga Reddy or by any civil/High Court judicial

orders. Taking advantage of the said discrepancies in the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

revenue records, the claimant Mir Jafar Ali Khan has filed a

claim petition on 02.12.2006 stating that as per the judgment in

O.S.No.156 of 1980 dated 12.10.2004, they are the successors of

late Salar Jung_III. As per the pahani for the year 1981-82 of

Sahebnagar Kalan village, Sy.No.201 was bifurcated as

Sy.No.201/1 admeasuring Ac.570.27 Guntas and it was classified

as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and recorded in the pattedar

column as Arazi Maktha Salarjung Sarkari and Sy.Nos.201/2

and 201/3 admeasuring Ac.200.00 Guntas were classified as

Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and recorded in the pattedar as

Potharaju Laxmaiah and 69 others. As per the pahanies for the

year 1987-88 and 1988-89, Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village

was classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar

and possession column, it was kept blank. The said Potharaju

Laxmaiah along with 69 assignees has approached the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East for grant of Occupancy

Rights Certificates under Section 8 of Inam Abolition Act, 1955 in

respect of land bearing Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.200.00 Guntas

situated at Sahebnagar Kalan village and that the Revenue PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Divisional Officer, without issuing any Form-II notices to the

Government and without holding proper enquiry as required

under the Act and Rules, issued the Occupancy Rights

Certificates in favour of the assignees. Aggrieved by the said

orders, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal

before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under Section 24

of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,

1955. As per the orders of the High Court in C.C.C.A.No.84 of

1982, the Joint Collector vide proceedings No.B3/8854/85 dated

03.11.1997, deleted the names of the assignees from the revenue

records to an extent of Ac.200.00 Guntas and thereby corrected

and recorded it as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and from the year

1996-2003 the whole extent of Ac.770.27 Guntas in Sy.No.201/1

was recorded as Sarkari both in pattedar and possession column

in the pahanies of Sahebnagar village. The District Collector,

Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.F1/4748/2003 dated

09.11.2004, directed to examine the whole history of the land in

the light of the orders passed by the High Court in PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

C.C.C.A.No.84 of 1982 dated 16.08.1985 as well as the orders of

the Joint Collector.

6. In the light of the above orders, it was observed that there

was a similar case in which one Mohammad Hassan Khan

Maharaj Kumar of Mahaboobabad of U.P. State, a close relative

of late Salar Jung-III, was granted patta on 26th Behman 1355-F

by late Salar Jung-III. The claimant filed a petition stating that

Government had encroached upon his land in the year 1954-55

and constituted a Reserve Forest Block and hence he was entitled

for compensation and thereby filed O.S.No.906 of 1977 before the

II-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration

of title and for recovery of compensation in respect of the lands

in Quthbullapur village and Sahebnagar village. The then

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, after thorough enquiry,

submitted a detailed report to the Government and that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.MS.No.1029 dated

14.11.1973 rejecting the application of the said Mohammad

Hassan Khan Maharaj Kumar. The review petition dated

27.04.1976 filed by him was also rejected. But, the suit was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

decreed in his favour with a direction to the Government to pay

compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by

the same, the Government preferred CCCA No.84 of 1982 and

that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide its judgment dated

16.08.1985, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and

decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.906 of 1977. The oral

application made for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was

rejected. As per the directions of the High Court in the said

judgment, the then Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide

proceedings No.B3/8854/85 dated 03.11.1997, directed the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, to make

necessary amendments in the revenue records. In the light of the

observations made by the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982

that the rights of Salarjung-III Jagirdar herein vis-à-vis the entire

Jagirs were in-alienable and Non-Heritable and were restricted

to its usufruct for life, the Forest Settlement Officer observed that

the land bearing Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village to an extent of

Ac.770.27 Guntas is neither Patta nor Inam and it is a

Government land and hence the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 will not apply to the

Government lands. Further, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and

Mandal Surveyor of Hayathnagar Mandal had conducted joint

inspection and reported that an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201

of Sahebnagar Kalan village, as claimed by the claimant Mir Jafar

Ali Khan for De-Notification, is physically vacant and it is under

the occupation of Forest Department and that they demarcated

the subject land and submitted location sketch. Accordingly, the

Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, rejected the claim petition

filed by the said Mir Jafar Ali Khan and others, who claim to be

the nominees of late Salarjung-III, for exclusion of patta land

from Reserve Forest Block of Gurramguda comprising of

Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.102.00 Guntas of Sahebnagar village

of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings

No.B/1428/71 dated 03.09.2010.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Forest Settlement

Officer dated 03.09.2010, the claimants preferred C.M.A.No.142

of 2010 before the S.Cs&S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and that the learned PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2012, allowed the appeal in

part and remanded the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer

with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry and dispose of the

claim petition keeping in view the observations made in the

judgment. Accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officer,

Hyderabad, after conducting fresh enquiry, allowed the claim

petition, vide proceedings No.B/1428/1971 dated 15.10.2014,

and the Divisional Forest Officer was requested to exclude the

lands admeasuring Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar

Kalan village from the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6

of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, from Gurramguda Forest Block.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Forest Settlement

Officer dated 15.10.2014, the Government preferred C.M.A.No.5

of 2015.

9. Gurramguda Forest Block comprises of three villages viz.,

(1) Saheb Nagar Kalan village, Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of

Ac.102.00 Guntas (2) Turkaymjal village, Turkayamjal Kancha,

Sy.No.93 with an extent of Ac.279.20 Guntas and (3) Nadergul PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Kancha, Gurramguda village, Sy.No.140/1 with an extent of

Ac.30.00 Guntas. The Board of Revenue, Hyderabad, by its

order in proceedings No.10815/17-A, dated 23.07.1953, allotted

an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas of land including Ac.102.00 from

out of total extent of Ac.770.27 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar

Kalan village to the Forest Department for establishment of Soil

Conservation Research Centre and got it notified under Section

4 of A.P. Forest Act and approved by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.772, Food and Agriculture (Forest-III) dated

18.06.1971 for reservation of Gurramguda Forest Block, by

appointing Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, to consider the

objections, if any, against the said declaration. The said

notification was published in District Gazette vide Gazette

No.15, dated 26.07.1971 and also published in A.P. Gazette No.23

dated 12.08.1971. The Forest Settlement Officer issued a

proclamation under Section 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 on

15.12.1971 and the same was published in the District Gazette

No.1 dated 05.01.1972. The proclamation was also displayed on

the Notice Board in the office of Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

inviting claims and objections against the notification published

under Section 4 (b) (1) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 over the lands

proposed and included in Gurramguda Forest Block within a

period of one year from the date of publication, for disposal of

the claims as required under the provisions of Section 10 (2) (a)

of A.P. Forest Act. Thereafter, the proposals under Section 15 of

the Act of Gurramguda Forest Block were prepared by the Forest

Settlement Officer and submitted the same to the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.B/1428/1970

dated 20.12.2004 for verification and for onward transmission to

the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad. The District Collector

transmitted the said proposals to the Conservator of Forest,

Hyderabad, after due verification on 02.03.2008 for further action

in the matter and the same is pending scrutiny. In the

meanwhile, respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming to be successors

and legal heirs of Salar Jung-III as per the orders in O.S.No.156

of 1980 and O.S.No.1451 of 1983 dated 12.10.2004, filed a claim

petition on 30.11.2005 along with relevant documents in support

of the claim before the Forest Settlement Officer, explaining the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

reasons for the delay caused in submitting the claim petition

against the notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of

Gurramguda Forest Block. They contended that the said land is

a private property of Salar Jung-III as per the sale deed dated

05.03.1243 Hijri and Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, Letter

No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954, Sahebnagar Kalan village lands

were released from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate.

Further, the claimants also filed as many as 26 documents in

support of their claim. Considering the documents filed by the

claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer issued a letter bearing

No.B/1428/1971, dated 12.12.2005 to the Deputy Collector,

Hayathnagar, requesting him to send a report about the subject

lands and that he has received a letter bearing No.C/13845/2007

dated 16.02.2008 from the Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar. After

examining the said report and the documents filed by the

claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer admitted the claim and

requested the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, vide Letter

No.B/1428/1971 dated 14.05.2008, to keep Section 15 notification

proposals pending till the enquiry of the claim petition is PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

finalized and also to furnish remarks about the proposal of

exclusion of the patta lands in Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of

Ac.102.00 pertaining to Salar Jung-III. The said letter was also

marked to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and

Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad. However, the Divisional

Forest Officer has not furnished any report, but the Conservator

of Forest, Hyderabad, has furnished a report in his letter

No.13813/65/D2 dated 09.07.2008 stating that the Forest

Settlement Officer is not competent authority to admit the claim

filed by the claimants after lapse of several years of publication

of Section 4 notification in the year 1971 and also publication of

proclamation under Section 6 of the Act in the year 1972 and that

the proposal of exclusion of forest land attracts the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer

vide Letter No.B/1428/71 dated 26.11.2008 furnished a detailed

explanation clarifying all the points raised by the Conservator of

Forests, Hyderabad, and also about the authority of the Forest

Settlement Officer for admission of the claim and further stated

that as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, he was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

convinced with the reasons for causing delay in filing the claim

petition and accordingly he allowed the claim petition.

10. The claimants stated that Conservator of Forests,

Hyderabad, vide Letter No.13813/63/D2 dated 04.02.2009 in

reply to the clarification issued by the Forest Settlement Officer

in Letter No.B/1428/1971 dated 26.11.2008, has again stated that

the Forest Settlement Officer sent Section 15 proposals to the

District Collector on 02.03.2008 and the same has been approved

by the District Collector and transmitted to Conservator of

Forests, Hyderabad, who in turn requested the Forest Settlement

Officer to take appropriate action in the matter, whereas the

Forest Settlement Officer sent Section 15 proposals to the District

Collector on 20.12.2004, but not 02.03.2008. In the instant case,

Section 15 notification was not issued by the Government and

the transmission of the proposals by the District Collector to the

Conservator of Forests is only a process for notification of the

area as Reserve Forest. The claimants further stated that the

subject land is a private patta land of Salar Jung-III, but their

claim petition was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer by PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

order dated 03.09.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the

claimants preferred C.M.A.No.142 of 2010 and that the learned

District Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2012, allowed the said

appeal and remanded the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer

to conduct a fresh enquiry. Pursuant to the said judgment, the

Forest Settlement Officer issued notices to the claimants as well

as the Divisional Forest Officer to file their remarks and

objections, if any, vide letter dated 18.05.2012. After receipt of

notices, the claimants appeared through their Counsel and filed

written arguments on 06.06.2012.

11. The claimants contended that late Saheb Begum Saheb had

purchased Maktha (Arazi Maktha/self-acquired) of village

Saheb Nagar Kalan under a sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri and

after her demise, her son late Mohammed Ali Khan known as

Salar Jung and lastly Yousuf Ali Khan, the only son of Salar

Jung-II known as Salar Jung-III, has succeeded the properties.

The estate of late Salr Jung-III comprising Arazi Maktha, Jagir

etc., were taken over by the Government of Nizam and were

kept under the supervision and management of the Court of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Wards when the Salar Jung-III was aged one month old and after

attaining the majority, the properties were released by the

Government of Nizam, Hyderabad through Farman dated 18th

Rabbi Ul Awwal 1331 Hijri from the Court of Wards and

thereafter Salar Jung-III continued to be in possession and

enjoyment of all the properties including Arazi Maktha. The

said Salar Jung-III died issueless on 02.03.1949 and thereafter a

Committee was appointed by H.E.H. Nizam on 23.03.1949 and

that a special Regulation was passed by the Government of

Hyderabad State known as Salar Jung Estate (Administration)

Regulation No.XXXIV 1358 Fasli and all the properties of Salar

Jung-III were vested under the Regulation and the Estate was

administered by Salar Jung Estate Committee and all the

properties were taken over by the Government of Hyderabad

under the Abolition of Jagirs Act and Salar Jung Estate was

dissolved vide G.O.Ms.No.952, Revenue, dated 18.05.1959. The

claimants further contended that Jagir Administrator,

Hyderabad, on submission of claim by the Committee of Estate

Salar Jung for release of Makthas belonging to the Estate and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

after hearing the parties, ordered for release of Arazi Makthas

from integration in favour of Salar Jung vide Letter No.808/CH

dated 24.04.1954 and requested the Collectors of Nalgonda,

Mahabubnagar and Hyderabad to effect release of the possession

of all the 12 Arazi Maktha lands and Saheb Nagar Kalan village

lands were listed at Serial No.1 of the 12 Arazi Makha villages

attached to the order dated 24.04.1954. Thereafter, the Deputy

Jagir Administrator vide judgment dated 26.07.1955 in file

NO.19/C had directed the concerned Collectors to effect release

of lands already ordered vide 808/CH dated 24.04.1954 with

exemption of Goathan, Rastha, Naddi, Nala and other public

places.

12. The committee of Estate Salar Jung presented the claim in

the office of Nazim Atiyat, Hyderabad, dated 15.10.1955 and

thereafter the Office of Nazim Atiya published a preliminary

notification No.H1550/1 in File No.2/56 on 15.02.1956 in the

Government of Hyderabad Gazette Part-II dated 29.03.1956

declaring the possession of all the properties comprised of Jagirs

and the Arazi Makthas shown in the list marked A. B, C & D PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

held in possession by Salar Jung-III at the time of his demise for

confirmation of possession by Sir Salar Jung-III and issue of

Muntakhab. They contended that Sahebnagar Kalan village was

listed in the List marked 'D' as purchased property. The

claimants further contended that the Court of Nazim Atiyat in

File No.2/56 dated 26.06.1968 held that Arazi Maktha villages

including Sahebnagar Kalan village listed therein are Arazi

Maktha lands and were released in the year 1954 from

integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they did not come

under the Jagir Abolition Act. As directed by the Court of

Nazim Atiyat, the claimants filed suits being O.S.No.156 of 1980

and 1451 of 1983 before the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, for declaration that they are the successors of

late Salar Jung-III and that the learned Judge, by judgment dated

12.10.2004, decreed the said suits by declaring that defendant

Nos.24 to 43, 46 to 65, 109 and 110 are successors/legal

representatives of late Salar Jung-III. Aggrieved by the said

judgment, A.S.Nos.222 of 2005 and 335 of 2005 were preferred

before the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Hyderabad, and the same were dismissed by judgment dated

01.08.2007. As per the judgment in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451

of 1983, the claimants, who are defendant Nos.109, 31 and 32 are

legal heirs and successors of late Salar Jung-III. The claimants

further contended that the pahanies for the year 1975-76 to 1982-

83 shows the name of Salar Jung as patttedar in respect of

Ac.570.00 in Sy.No.201 as Arazi Maktha of Salar Jung, as stated

by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar, vide letter

dated 16.02.2008 addressed to the Forest Settlement Officer,

Hyderabad. The claimants contended that they are not parties in

CCCA No.84 of 1982 and, therefore, the judgment passed in the

said appeal is not binding on them. They further contended that

the order of Joint Collector in file Nos.B3/8789/1985 to

B3/8855/1985 is also not binding on them as the said order is

based on the judgment passed by the High Court in CCCA

No.84 of 1982.

13. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy

District filed O.P.No.316 of 1988 before the District Judge-cum-

Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, Ranga PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Reddy District, seeking recovery of possession of land to an

extent of Ac.0.26 Guntas covered by Sy.No.60 PP of Lingojiguda

village, Saroornagar Mandal, which is one of the villages

declared as Arazi Maktha and ordered for release in favour of

Salar Jung-III vide Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, in Letter

No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954. The Special Tribunal, after

considering the material available on record, dismissed the said

O.P. by judgment dated 01.09.1993, holding that Arazi Maktha

lands are self-acquired properties of Salar Jung-III and the land

in Lingojiguda village is a private property of Salar Jung-III.

Against the said judgment, the Mandal Revenue Officer

preferred LGA No.31 of 1997 before the Special Court and the

same was dismissed by judgment dated 23.06.1998.

14. The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, in his letter No.B2/1716/80

dated 02.01.1981 addressed to the Project Officer, HUDA

regarding alienation of lands in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan

village in favour of HUDA, stated that Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar

Kalan village was registered as Arazi Maktha of Salar Jung and

there is no scope for treating the land as Government land and as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

such the alienation cannot be proposed and thus requested for

exclusion of Ac.102.00 of land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar

kalan village from the notification issued under Section 4 of the

A.P. Forest Act, 1967.

15. The Divisional Forest Officer filed a written submissions

on 08.11.2012 opposing the claim made by the claimants, inter

alia, contending that the Secretary, Board of Revenue, vide his

letter No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953, transferred Ac.570.00 of

land from Sy.No.201 comprising of Ac.770.00 of land in Saheb

Nagar Kalan village, to the Forest Department for establishing

Soil Conservation Research Centre leaving a balance of Ac.200.00

of land in Sy.No.201 for Harijans of Saheb Nagar village. Out of

Ac.570.00 of land, an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of

Sahebnagar village was included in Gurramguda Forest Block. It

is further contended that the claimants filed claim petition after

53 years and as such they have no right over the said land. The

Forest Department is the owner of the land and the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980 is in force. As per Section 71 of A.P.

Forest Act, 1967, any land can be acquired through notification PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

as a Reserved Forest and as such the claimants are not having

any right over the land in question. It is further stated that as

per letter No.808/CH, dated 24.04.1954, an extent of Ac.2262.36

Guntas in Saheb Nagar Kalan village and an extent of Ac.465.27

Guntas in Saheb Nagar Khurd village were released in favour of

Estate Salar Jung, but there is no survey number specified in the

said letter and as such identification of the land on the ground is

difficult and the claim made by the claimants in Sy.No.201/1 of

Saheb Nagar Kalan village is illegal and baseless as the said land

is transferred to the Forest Department during 1953. The

claimants have not made any claim at the time of passing award

in favour of Vipasana International Mediation Centre and as

such they have no right to claim the land in question. It is

further stated that the Forest Department is in continuous

possession of the land since 1953 and the claimants filed the

present claim petition in the year 2005 after lapse of 52 years. As

per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, prior approval of Central

Government is necessary for de-reservation of forest and for use

of forest land as non forest purposes. He further stated that PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

there are some court cases pending in respect of Sy.No.201 filed

by different persons in W.P.Nos.19942 of 2005, 24749 of 2005 and

28808 of 2012. As per Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,

1980, the State Government has no power to de-reserve of the

forest land for use of forest land for non-forest purpose. The

Divisional Forest Officer requested the Forest Settlement Officer

not to take any decision on the claim petition of Mir Jaffar Ali

Khan and two others until passing of orders by the High Court

as well as the Government of India and hence to reject the claim

petition filed by the claimants.

16. In the reply arguments filed by the claimants on

22.11.2012, it is contended that as per Section 15 of A.P. Forest

Act, 1967, the Government is the competent authority to issue

notification declaring the area to be reserved from the date fixed

in the notification. Admittedly, Section 15 notification was not

issued by the Government and as such the subject lands are not

declared as Reserve Forest and as such the claimants have

rightly filed the claim petition as per the notification issued

under Section 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. It is further PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

contended that the provisions of Section 71 of the A.P. Forest Act

are not applicable to the facts of the case, as it deals with

acquisition of any land under the Act be treated as public

purpose under Land Acquisition Act. It is further contended

that at the time of Award passed by the Forest Settlement Officer

in respect of right of way to Vipasana International Meditation

Centre, the claimants were not declared as successors of Salar

Jung-III and as such they have not filed any objection to the said

Award. It is further contended that the Writ Petitions pending

before the High Court are not relevant to the claim petition and

as per Section 5 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, suits are barred and no

Court shall, between the dates of application of a notification

under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and notification

issued under Section 15 of A.P. Forest Ac, 1967, entertain to

establish any right in or over any land included in the

notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act. It is further

contended that neither the Forest Settlement Officer nor the

claimants are parties to the said Writ Petitions.

PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

17. The Forest Settlement Officer after going through the sale

deed relied upon by the claimants, observed that late Saheb

Begum Saheba had purchased Maktha of Saheb Nagar Kalan

village under the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri. The

contention of the claimants is that after the demise of said Saheb

Begum Saheba, the said property was succeeded by her

grandson Yousuf Ali Khan, Salar Jung-III, who continued to be

in possession of the said property and he died issueless on

02.03.1949 and after the demise of Salar Jung-III, Salar Jung

Estate Committee was constituted by Special Regulation XXXIV

passed by the Government of Hyderabad and all the properties

of Salar Jung including Sahebnagar Kalan village were vested

with the Salar Jung Committee to administer the estate of Salar

Jung-III. The Forest Settlement Officer further held that as per

the judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of

1983, the claimants are the successors of late Salar Jung-III and

they have a right to file the claim petition. He further held that

as per the letter issued by Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, dated

24.04.1954, the lands of Sahebnagar Kalan village were declared PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

as Arazi Maktha lands. It is evident from the judgment of the

Deputy Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad dated 26.09.1955 that

the Deputy Jagir Administrator directed the concerned

Collectors to ascertain the areas of public places, determine and

release all the arazi makthas with exemption of Goathan, Rastha,

Nadi, Nala and other public places in favour of Salar Jung Estate.

The Court of Nazim Atiyat by its judgment dated 26.06.1968,

held that Arazi Maktha villages including Sahebnagar Kalan

village have been declared as Arazi Maktha lands and were

released in the year 1954 from integration in favour of Salar Jung

Estate as they did not come under Jagir Abolition Act. The

Forest Settlement Officer further held that in the pahanies issued

by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, in pattedar column, it is

mentioned as Salar Jung Sarkari and Arazi Maktha/Salar Jung

Sarkari. Further, the claimants are not parties to CCCA No.84 of

1982 and that in the said judgment there is no mention of the

letter issued by Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, dated

24.04.1954 and the order of Deputy Jagir Administrator,

Hyderabad dated 26.09.1955. The Forest Settlement Officer, after PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

evaluating the documents filed by the claimants, held that the

lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village included in

Gurramguda Forest Block and notified under Section 4 of the

A.P. Forest Act, 1967 are Arazi Maktha lands (Purchased lands)

of Salar Jung-III and the successors/claimants/legal

representatives of Salar Jung-III have a right and title in respect

of the said lands. Further, the provisions of Forest Conservation

Act, 1980 are not applicable to the private lands and for

exclusion of the patta lands, permission of Central Government

is not required as per the decision of the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P.No.12137 of 1999 dated 24.08.1999. Accordingly,

the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, by order dated

15.10.2014, allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

18. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2014, the

Government of Telangana, preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 before

the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Admittedly,

the suits being O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983 filed by

respondents 1 to 3/claimants were decreed by the VII-Senior

Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment dated PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

12.10.2004, declaring them as successors of late Salar Jung-III and

that the appeals being A.S.Nos.222 of 2005 and 335 of 2005 filed

against the said judgment were dismissed by the III-Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment dated

01.08.2007. Hence, the appellate authority held that since no

second appeal was preferred, the findings given by the Courts

below are binding on the Government. Since the notification

under Section 15 of the Act has not been issued till 30.11.2005,

preferring of a claim by the claimants for exclusion of the subject

lands is rightly within limitation as held by the lower authority

and the learned District Judge. It is evident from the record that

late Saheb Begum Saheba, the great grandmother of late Salar

Jung-III, purchased three Makthas by a sale deed dated

05.03.1243 Fasli executed by Rafit-Ul-Mulk and the recitals of the

said document shows that it was executed in Persian language

and it pertains to the year 1243 Fasli i.e., about 192 years old.

The revenue records pertaining to Saheb Nagar Kalan village

reveals that the three Maktha lands were purchased by Saheb

Begum Saheba in the year 1243 Fasli. Further, it is evident that PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

after promulgation of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs)

Regulations, 1358 Fasli, the then Hyderabad Government issued

a notification on 07.09.1949 transferring the entire estate of Salar

Jung to Jagir Administrator, which came into effect on

20.09.1949. As per the letter dated 23.07.1953 issued by the

Board of Revenue, Hyderabad in File No.10815/10817/A, an

extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas of land out of Ac.770.00 Guntas in

Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was allotted to the

Forest Department for establishing Soil Conservation Research

Centre, though the land was originally belonging to Salar Jung

Estate. Pursuant to that, Salar Jung Estate Committee filed a

claim for release of the land belonging to the estate. Thereupon,

it was decided by the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, that the

lands detailed in the statement consisting of 12 villages including

Sahebnagar Kalan village listed at Sl.No.1 were found to be

Arazi Maktha and ordered for release of the same from the

integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate vide Letter No.808/CH

dated 24.04.1954. The learned Judge further observed that the

revenue records till 1985-86 reflects the name of Salar Jung as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Arazi Maktha for the subject lands. As rightly held by the lower

authority and the appellate authority that the Government did

not produce any document before the Court to substantiate that

the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar village is a Government

property except relying on the findings of the High Court in

CCCA No.84 of 1982. The learned Judge further observed that

since the claimants, who are the successors-in-interest of late

Salar Jung-III, are not parties to either O.S.No.906 of 1977 or

CCCA No.84 of 1982, the findings therein are not binding on

them. The learned District Judge, after going through the entire

material available on record and after hearing the parties, held

that as per the Jagir Administrator's letter dated 24.04.1954 and

the judgment of Deputy Jagir Administrator in File No.19/C

dated 26.09.1955, the lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan

village are Arazi Maktha lands. The Special Tribunal-cum-

Additional District Judge in O.P.No.315 of 1988 also held that the

lands are Arazi Maktha lands and private lands of Salar Jung

Estate and the provisions of Jagir Abolition Act are not

applicable to the said lands. Further, the revenue record which PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

includes pahanies shows that the land was recorded in the name

of Salar Jung-III as pattedar and owner of the land till 1982-83.

Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the

C.M.A. filed by the Government by judgment dated 23.09.2016.

19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.09.2016, the

present revision petition has been filed by the State of Telangana,

inter alia, contending that the findings of the Principal District

Judge passed in the impugned judgment are totally against the

mandatory provisions of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs)

Regulation of 1358 Fasli, A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955

and A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The findings are

based on inadmissible documents. The appellate Court erred in

holding that the subject property is the self-acquired property of

the predecessor of respondents 1 to 3, when the property was

classified as Government land in the settlement and revenue

records. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed title over the subject

lands based on unregistered sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri,

original of which has not seen the light of the day, but the

appellate Court erroneously assumed that the original of the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

document was filed before the primary authority. As per the

said sale deed, the subject matter of the property consists of three

Makths viz., Gandari Pump, Kamphalla Maqta and Maqta land,

which are nothing to do with Sahebnagar Kalan village and that

there is no reference of Sahebnagar Kalan village at all in the

alleged sale deed. The appellate Court erred in holding that

Arazi Maqta are self-acquired lands. As per the provisions of

Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli, Maqtas

come within the meaning of 'Jagirs' and the Jagirs are the Crown

grants for the life time of grantee only and they are inalienable

and upon the Abolition of Jagirs and Inams, no private rights are

available in respect of such Jagir/Inam lands. After abolition of

Inams, all kinds of interest held by a person in inam land stood

abolished and vested in the State with effect from the notified

date 20.07.1955 and unless re-grant in respect of Inam lands is

made, no private rights are available to any individual. It is

contended that aggrieved by the findings of Nazim Atiyat,

appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Survey and

Settlement and Member, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

that the appellate authority in its judgment dated 31.12.1976 held

that the finding of Nazim Atiyat Court with regard to Arazi

Maqtas and Inam lands is not in order and as such the same was

cancelled and the claimants may approach the Atiyat Collector,

Hyderabad District for disposal of their claims and that the said

judgment of the appellate authority dated 31.12.1976 has become

final. As per 13 (1) of the A.P. (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952,

Civil Court's jurisdiction is limited to the extent of determining

the question of succession, legitimacy, divorce or other questions

of personal law under Section 12 of the A.P (TA) Atiyat

Enquiries Act, 1952. The appellate Court failed to consider the

revenue records, wherein the subject lands were classified as

'Kancha Poramboke Sarkari' in column No.2, Salarjung Sarkari

as Khatedar in column No.11 and the land is in the possession of

Vanasthalipuram society, Forest Department etc., and it is not

assessed to land revenue. After the demise of Salarjung-III on

02.03.1949, none approached revenue authorities for mutation of

their names in the revenue records as legal heirs of Salarjung-III

and till date, the entries in the revenue records in respect of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

subject lands are maintained as 'Kancha Paromboke Sarkari'. As

per the provisions of A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli

also, the subject lands fall within the meaning of 'Maqta' and not

private patta lands. It is contended that the appellate Court has

erroneously placed reliance on the judgment of the Special

Tribunal in O.P.No.316 of 1988 and of the Special Court dated

26.06.1998 in LGA No.31 of 1997, when they have no relevancy

to the case inasmuch as in the said matter. It is further

contended that the subject lands are in possession of the Forest

Department since 1953 and no claims were made over the said

land till the year 2005 and the respondents made claims after

notification was made under Sections 4 and 6 of the A.P. Forest

Act, therefore, requested the Court to allow the revision by

setting aside the order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated

15.10.2014 which is confirmed by the Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District by judgment dated 23.09.2016.

20. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the entire record paced before the Court. In PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

addition to oral submissions, written arguments along with case

laws are also submitted by the learned Counsel on either side.

21. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the

revision petitioner/Government contended that no occupancy

rights certificates were obtained by respondents 1 to 3/claimants

as the land was vested with the Government and re-grant was

not made in respect of Inam land and as such no private rights

were available to any individual. He further contended that the

orders of Nazim Atiyat Court and the appellate authority

conclusively establish that the subject lands are jagir lands and

that the so-called predecessors of the claimants made a claim for

payment of commutation in respect of Sahebnagar Kalan village

lands. Initially, Nazim Atiyat Court in so far as Arazi Maqtas

shown in the list 'C' and 'D' did not pass any orders observing

that in view of Abolition of Inams Act, 1967, the Atiyat Court

ceased to have jurisdiction over Arazi Maqta and Inam lands

and directed the parties to seek relief under the Abolition of

Inams Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the said findings of Nazim

Atiyat, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Survey PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

and Settlement & Member, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh

and that the appellate authority in its judgment dated 31.12.1976

held that the finding of Nazim Atiyat Court with regard to rights

over Arazi Maqtas and Inam lands is not in order and as such

the same was cancelled and as most of the Maqtas and Inam

lands claimed are situated in Hyderabad District, the claimants

may approach the Atiyat Collector, Hyderabad District for

disposal of their claims and that the said judgment of appellate

authority dated 31.12.1976 has become final as the claimants did

not approach the Atiyat Collector. He further contended that the

Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 13 of the A.P.

(TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 to determine the nature of the

land. As per Section 13 (1) of the Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction is

limited to the extent of determining the question of succession,

legitimacy, divorce or other questions or personal law under

Section 12 of the A.P. (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. He

further contended that in the revenue records, the subject lands

were classified as 'Kancha Paramboke Sarkari' in column No.2,

'Salarjung Sarkari' in column No.11 and the land is in possession PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

of Vanasthalipuram society, Forest Department and it is not

assessed to land revenue. He further contended that the

claimants have not filed any document to show that the subject

lands are the self-acquired private patta lands belonging to the

predecessor-in-title. He further contended that the Forest

Settlement Officer is a member of Salarjung Estate Committee

and he participated in the proceedings before the Nazim Atiyat

for payment of commutation fee in respect of estate of Salarjung-

III including Sahebnagar Kalan village and having participated

before the Nazim Atiyat and pleaded that Sahebnagar Kalan is a

Jagir village, the respondents/claimants are now estopped to say

that Sahebnagar Kalan village is a self-acquired property. He

mainly contended that the grant of Arazi Maqtha (Minor Inam)

was only for the lifetime of the grantee and after his death, it was

open to the Sovereign either to resume the grant or confirm the

grant to the successors of the original grantee and in support of

his contention, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mohammad Shoukat Khan vs. PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

State of Andhra Pradesh through the Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department, Excise Branch, Hyderabad1.

22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri

K.Ashok Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to

3/claimants contended that Arazi Maqta is an Inam or grant,

whereas self-acquired properties cannot be construed as Inam or

Arazi Maqta. In the light of findings of both Forest Settlement

Officer and District Judge that the subject land is a private patta

land, the question as to whether they constitute Arazi Maqta is

inconsequential and has no bearing on the nature of the land

being private patta land. The Forest Settlement Officer, after

considering all the documents filed by the claimants, held that

the subject lands are private patta lands of Salarjung-III and that

he construed the entry 'Arazi Maqta' in the revenue records as

purchased lands. The said finding was confirmed by the District

Court and as such the question of land being construed as Arazi

Maqta as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Inam Abolition Act

does not arise. As per the note submitted by the Revenue

1966 SCC Online AP 211 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Divisional Officer dated 12.12.1961, prior to integration as per

Sethwar of 1936 Fasli (1947), there were several patta lands and

in the absence of original files of Jagir Administrator, it cannot be

commented upon as to how patta lands were declared as land

covered by Arazi Maqta. The said report also shows that entire

village of Sahebnagar Kalan was shown as covered by Arazi

Maqta including the patta lands. Even as per letter dated

29.09.1962 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Hyderabad (East) to the Collector, Hyderabad District also

shows that Sahebnagar Kalan was at no time granted as Jagir

under any account of grant, but purchased by Estate during the

time of Salar Jung and after purchasing the lands, new Maqta

village was formed in the name of wife of Salar Jung-I. It is

further contended that as per the findings of the Forest

Settlement Officer and also District Judge, the great grandmother

of Salar Jung-III namely Saheb Begum Saheba purchased the

subject land comprising Ac.102.00 Guntas from one Rafath Mulk

Mir Akhar Ali Khan vide document bearing No.5th Rabi-al-awal

1249 AH/1243 Fasli and that a certified copy of the said sale PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

deed was obtained by the claimants from the State Archieves

and filed before the Forest Settlement Officer. The genuineness

of the said document was not disputed by the Government at

any time. After the death of Salar Jung-III on 02.03.1949, Salar

Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation 34 of 1358 (1947) Fasli

was passed by the Nizam and Clause (2) of the said Regulation

provided for the appointment of Salar Jung Estate Committee to

administer the Estate of Salar Jung. The said Regulation was

amended and Salar Jung Estate (Administration) (Amendment)

Regulation LXIV of 1358 (1947) was passed. As per amended

Clause-3A, the Estate of Salar Jung including his personal

property shall vest with the Salar Jung Estate Committee and the

Committee shall have power to sell, transfer or otherwise

dispose of or deal with Estate including his personal property. It

is further contended that on 07.09.1949, notification No.8 was

issued by the Revenue Department of the then Government of

Hyderabad to transfer the Estate of Salar Jung to the

Government for the administration of Jagirs, as if it was a Jagir.

On 21.04.1950, the Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur (Administration PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

of Assets) Act, 1950 was passed by the Parliament and the Salar

Jung Estate Committee formed under Regulation 34 of 1958 (F)

was empowered to continue the administration of the Salar Jung

Estate. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Hyderabad, addressed

a letter No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953 to the Chief Conservator

of Forests, Hyderabad, regarding sanction of an extent of

Ac.570.00 of land in Sy.No.201 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village to

the Forest Department for establishment of Soil Conservation

Research Centre. The Jagir Administrator addressed a letter

No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954 to the District Collectors of

Hyderbad, Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda stating that it has been

decided that the lands detailed in the attached statement have

been proved by the documentary evidence to be only Arazi

Maqta and that the lands may be released from integration in

favour of Estate Salar Jung. Item No.1 of attached list is Saheb

Nagar Kalan comprising Ac.2262.36 Guntas and out of the said

extent, the subject land is Ac.102.00. Item No.3 of the said list

refers to the lands in Lingojiguda comprising an extent of

Ac.277.20 Guntas, wherein the District Judge-cum-Special PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Ranga

Reddy District passed judgment in O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated

01.09.1993 holding that the Government is not the owner of the

land bearing Sy.No.60 of Lingojiguda village. The Government

having aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred LGA NO.31 of

1997 before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the same was dismissed by judgment

dated 23.06.1998 holding that the said land does not belong to

the Government, but it belongs to the Salar Jung Estate.

23. It is further contended that the judgment in File No.19/C

dated 26.09.1955 was passed by the Deputy Jagir Administrator

in the presence of Counsels for the Salar Jung Estate and the

Government and it refers to the objections raised by the District

Collector, Mahabubnagar in respect of Buchiguda, one of the 12

villages released as per the letter bearing No.808/CH dated

24.04.1954 of Jagir Administrator. The Deputy Jagir

Administrator issued some clarifications to the District

Collectors for implementing the said order of Jagir

Administrator and directed them to handover the lands by PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

excluding public places to Salar Jung Estate. The notification

No.1550/1 dated 15.02.1956 issued by the Office of Nizam

Atiyat, Revenue Department and published in Gazette of the

Government of Hyderaabd, reveals that the Estate of Salar Jung

was previously exempted from Inam enquiry, but, however, it

became necessary for issuance of Muntaqab to confirm Jagir and

other mash either self-purchased or Royal grants in favour of the

Estate. Objections were called for from the claimants regarding

the property appended to the notification lists, namely, A, B, C

and D. List contains the lands purchased under sub head

'Eastern Circle, District Hyderabad'. Three lands of Saheb Nagar

Kalan village were shown at Serial No.3 and Lingojiguda was

shown at Sl.No.1. In the judgment of Nazim Atiyat vide File

No.2/55/56, it was held that Nazim Atiyat Court should confine

its enquiries to Inam enquiries as to any gift, title or interest

leaving all questions of succession and ancillary matters to the

Civil Court. The Inam enquiry of Salar Jung Estate by Nazim

Atiyat in File No.2/56 of 1956 took place and in the enquiry

proceedings, it was stated that 12 villages were declared as Arazi PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Maqtas and released in the year 1954 as they did not come under

the purview of Jagir Abolition Regulation. Saheb Nagar Kalan

was shown at item No.9 and Lingojiguda at item No.7. It was

further stated in the said proceedings that in view of abolition of

Inams Act, Nazim Atiyat Courts have ceased to have jurisdiction

over Arazi Maqta and Inam lands and hence no orders were

passed regarding Arazi Maqta as they were not Jagirs. It was

further held that Salar Jung Estate Committee was free to seek

relief under Inams Abolition Act. However, the Court of 5th

Member and Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

(Revenue), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the appellate authority

against the order dated 26.06.1968 of Nazim Atiyat Court held

that the observation of Court of Nazim Atiyat that the Atiyat

Courts have ceased to have jurisdiction over Arazi Maqtas and

Inam lands and the claimants were free to seek relief under the

Inams Abolition Act, 1967 is not in order and as such the same

was cancelled. Learned Senior Counsel for the

respondents/claimants further contended that the present

revision has been filed by the Government, under Article 227 of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

the Constitution of India, against the impugned judgment dated

23.09.2016 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and that the jurisdiction vested

in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

is a very limited one and in support of his contention, he relied

upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs.

Prakash Chand Goel2 , wherein it was held as under:

"The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is

(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 181 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:-

The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."

24. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is

any material illegality or irregularity committed by the lower

authority as confirmed by the appellate Court in passing the

impugned judgment?

25. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of record or

perversity in the findings or findings being unsupported by

evidence, the High Court cannot interfere with such findings in

exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. Respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed a

petition dated 30.11.2005 before the Forest Settlement Officer

claiming that the property originally belonged to Salar Jung-III

as per the judgment in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983

dated 12.10.2004 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, and they are the successors-in-interest

of Salar Jung-III. After considering the documents filed by the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer rightly held that as per

the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri, the subject land is a private

land of Salar Jung-III and as per the decree and judgment of the

Civil Court dated 12.10.2004, the claimants are the successors of

Salar Jung-III. The Forest Settlement Officer also taken into

consideration the letter of the Jagir Administrator dated

24.04.1954; Order of Deputy Jagir Administrator in File No.19/C

dated 26.09.1955, the order of the District Judge-cum-Special

Tribunal under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the

judgment of the Special Court in LGA No. 31 of 1997 dated

23.06.1998 and pahanies for the years 1974-75 to 1982-83. The

Hyderabad District Gazette dated 29.03.1956 confirms that issue

of Munthakab in respect of possession of Arazi Maktha and

other properties held by Salar Jung Estate was shows as

'purchased land' in the heading list 'D' of the notification.

Similarly, the judgment of Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 dated

26.06.1968 held that Arazi Maktha villages including Sahebnagar

Kalan were declared as Arazi Maktha lands and were released in

1954 from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they are PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

not falling within Jagir Abolition Act. In the judgment in

O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated 12.09.1993 on the file of the District

Judge-cum-Special Tribunal held that the property does not

belong to the Government. The Collector, Hyderabad, in his

report dated 22.05.1967 stated that the land in Sahebnagar Kalan

is not forming part of Jagir. Further, the letter of Deputy

Collector dated 16.02.2008 shows that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of

Sahebnagar Kalan village shown as Salar Jung Sarkari in the

pattedar column in the pahanies of 1974-75 to 1982-83. The

Forest Settlement Officer called for report from the Deputy

Collector, Hayathnagar and admitted the claim petition and

requested the Divisional Forest Officer to keep the proposal to

issue notification under Section 15 pending till the enquiry into

the claim petition is completed. The Government did not

produce any material to show that the subject land is not the

private property of Salar Jung-III and that the claimants are not

successors-in-interest of Salar Jung-III. The finding of the Civil

Court confirmed by the appellate Court that the claimants are

legal heirs/successors of Salar Jung-III has attained finality and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

that question is not open to be re-agitated. No second appeal has

been preferred against the orders of the appellate Court.

26. The contention of the revision petitioner/Government is

that as per the judgment of the High Court in CCCA No.84 of

1982, the subject land belongs to the Government. However, no

revenue record has been placed before the Court by the

Government to substantiate that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of

Saheb Nagar village is a Government property except relying on

the findings of the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982. The

finding of the lower authority as confirmed by the learned

District Judge on this aspect is that the High Court gave finding

in the said appeal basing on the report of the Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District in File No.B3/8789/1985 to B3/855/1985

stating that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan

village is a Government land. From a perusal of the record, it is

evident that respondents 1 to 3/claimants, who are the

successors-in-interest of late Salar Jung-III, are not parties to the

aforesaid appeal and as such the findings therein are not binding PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

on the claimants, as rightly held by the lower authority and the

learned District judge.

27. The contention of the revision petitioner/Government is

that under Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980,

permission of Central Government is required before ordering

exclusion of subject lands and that without obtaining prior

approval of the Central Government, the State Government

cannot put the forest land to non-forest purposes. In the instant

case, it is not the exclusion of any forest land from the Forest Act,

because it is the private patta land which is sought to be

excluded from the Forest Block by the Government. As per the

decision of the High Court in W.P.No.12137 of 1989, dated

24.8.1999, permission of the Government of India is not required

in respect of private patta lands. The entire revenue record

produced before the lower authority reveals that the subject land

was recorded in the name of Salar Jung-III along with the lands

in Gurramguda Forest Block.

28. The contention of the Government that the claim made by

the respondents/claimants more than 50 years after the land was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

taken over by the Forest Department is barred by time. The

delay in filing the claim petition was properly explained by the

claimants by way of documentary evidence and it was

considered by the Forest Settlement Officer and the District

Judge. Admittedly the notification under Section 15 of the A.P.

Forest Act, 1967 has not been issued by the time the claim of the

respondents/claimants was submitted. Therefore, the rights of

the claimants in the subject land are not extinguished as per

Section 15 of the Act. The claimants filed the claim petition to

exclude the lands from the notification under Section 4 and

proclamation under Section 6 of the Act, even before issuance of

notification under Section 15 of the Act, and that the Forest

Settlement Officer condoned the delay and admit the claim

under Section 16 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act reads as under:

"Rights in respect of which no claim was preferred under Section 6 within the period fixed under that section shall stand extinguished on the publication of the notification under Section 15 unless, before the publication of such notification the person claiming them has convinced the Forest PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within that period in which case the Forest Settlement Officer shall proceed to dispose of the claim in the manner herein before provided".

29. The Civil Revision Petition cannot be inquired into like a

Civil Appeal. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of

record, the High Court cannot revise the concurrent findings of

the Forest Settlement Officer, which are affirmed by the District

Judge. Both the orders contained reasons both on facts and law.

As the Government notifications filed before the Court, the

Government is well aware of the fact that the property is

personal estate of Nizam and it is not governed by Jagir

Abolition Act. The letter of Jagir administration to that effect is

not disputed by the Government. Certified copies of public

documents more than 30 years is entitled for presumption of

correctness. Originally, the land belongs to personal estate of

Nizam ruler Salar Jung. In the proceedings of Atiyat Court and

Court of Wards, it is declared as personal property being Arazi PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Maqta. Jagir Administrator in a letter dated 24.04.1954

addressed to the District Collector of Hyderabad and

Mahabubnagar, directed to release the private property in

favour of estate of Salar Jung. Item No.2 of the list is total area of

Ac.2263.36 Guntas of land in Sahebnagar Kalan including subject

land.

30. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was given on

18.06.1971 and proclamation under Section 6 was given on

15.12.1971. Proposals under Section 15 were prepared by the

Forest Settlement Officer on 20.12.2004 and sent to Conservator

of Forest on 02.03.2008, but the claimants herein i.e., defendants

109, 31 and 32 filed an application on 30.11.2005 after declaring

them as successors-in-interest by Civil Court on 12.10.2004.

They obtained as many as 26 documents from various

authorities to substantiate their delay. It is argued that Section

15 notification is not issued till today, hence rights of claimants

are not extinguished. The Forest Settlement Officer is authorised

under Section 16 of the Act to condone the delay and to dispose

of the claims. As per Section 10 (2) (ii), the Forest Settlement PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

Officer may direct exclusion of land from the limits of proposed

forest lands. The Great grandmother of Salar Jung-III purchased

the property vide sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Fasli, which is 192

years old Persian document, it was obtained from the State

Achieves on 13.09.1966, it was executed by Rafit-Ul-Mulka and

in the last page, it was approved with his personal stamp.

31. The subject land was transferred to Forest Department as

per the letter of Secretary, Board of Revenue dated 23.07.1953.

As per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Fasli, the land is a private

land of Salar Jung-III and as per the decree and judgments of

Civil Court dated 12.10.2004, the claimants are successors of

Salar Jung-III. To further strengthen this view, the Forest

Settlement Officer has also taken into consideration the letter of

Jagir Administrator dated 24.04.1954, order of Deputy Jagir

Administrator in File No.19/C dated 12.09.1955, order of Land

Grabbing Tribunal in LGA No.31 of 1997 dated 23.06.1998 and

pahanies for the years 1974-75 to 1982-83. The Hyderabad

District Gazette dated 29.03.1956 confirms the issue of

Munthakab in respect of Arazi Maktha and other properties held PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

by Salar Jung Estate was shown as 'puchased land' in 'D'

notification. Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 dated 26.06.1968 held

that Arazi Maqta villages including Sahebnagar Kalan were

released from integration in 1954 in favour of Salar Jung Estate

as they are not falling within Jagir Abolition Act.

32. In O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated 12.09.1993, it was held that the

property does not belong to the Government. The Collector,

Hyderbad, in his report dated 22.05.1967 stated that land in

Sahebnagar Kalan is not forming part of Jagir. The letter of

Deputy Collector dated 16.02.2008 shows that the land in

Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village as Salar Jung Sarkari in

the pattedar column in the Pahanies of 1975-76 to 1982-83.

33. The Central Government permission is required as per

Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to use the

forest land for non-forest purposes, but the claimants requested

for exclusion of their land from forest land and thus prior

approval of Central Government is not required. In fact, the

provisions of Forest Conservation Act does not apply.

PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

34. As per the joint inspection dated 18.02.2013, the Forest

Settlement Officer concluded that lands in Sy.No.201/1 of

Sahebnagar Kalan are Arazi Maqta lands (Purchased lands) of

Salar Jung-III and his successors have right and title in the said

lands. Revision petitioner failed to prove that the property is not

the private property of Salar Jung-III and claimants are not his

successors.

35. As per the Gazette Notification dated 29.03.1956 issued by

the then Hyderabad Government, the land in Sahebnagar Kalan

village is not inam land. The said Gazette Notification is

extracted hereunder:

"LIST (D): List of lands, purchased land and Balghat etc.,

situated in Taluqa Western Circle, District: Atraf-e-Balda.

      1. Mir Sagar              ... 89 purchased Inam lands etc.,

      2. Budwel                ... Seri lands

      3. Hyderguda              ... Seri lands

      4. Upparapalli            ... Seri lands

      5. Danapur               ... Seri lands
                                                                PSS,J
                                                  CRP No.417 of 2017

Taluqa Eastern Circle, District: Hyderabad:-

      1. Lingojiguda                ...   Seri lands

      2. Sahabnagar Khurd           .... One land

      3. Sahabnagar Kalan           ...   Three lands

      4. Maqta Ismailkhan Guda ...        Inam land

Taluqa Shadnagar, District: Mahabubnagar:-

Buchchiguda ... Two Inam lands

36. The Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge were

relied on the notification dated 15.02.1956 while holding that

several lands are self-acquired lands. Part of land in Lingojiguda

village also forms part of land of Salarjung and covered by

notification dated 29.03.1956. Further, LGC No.316 of 1988 was

dismissed holding that the land is a private patta land and it was

confirmed in LGA No.31 of 1997.

37. The Forest Settlement Officer, after considering all the

documents filed by the claimants, held that the subject lands are

private patta lands of Salar Jung-III and that he construed the

entry 'Arazi Maqta' in the revenue records as purchased lands PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

and the said finding was confirmed by the District Court and as

such the question of land being construed as Arazi Maqta as

defined under Section 2 (c) of the A.P Abolition of Inams Act,

1955 does not arise. Therefore, the argument of the learned

Advocate General appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner

that Inam includes Arazi Maqta and that the claimants have to

seek remedies before the Inams Abolition Court cannot be

accepted.

38. The Forest Settlement Officer has exercised his discretion

on sound legal appreciation of the provisions and such finding

which was confirmed by the learned District Judge in the order

under revision cannot be called as material irregularity, calling

for exercising of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of Constitution of India. The scope of the power of

review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as per the

decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Aidal

Singh and others vs. Karan Singh and others3 reads as under:

AIR 1957 All. 414 FB PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

"In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the Curt is moved to action by circumstances which shock the conscience of the Court. The Court finds that the position created is one of negation of law and justice. The Court finds itself faced with a situation fraught with danger to the administration of justice. It finds the administrative foundations of justice shaken or its judicial structure imperilled".

39. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with

a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly

exercised to keep Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of

their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil and

criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases

when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. A

three Judge Bench of Apex Court in Chandrasekhar Singh and

others vs. Siya Ram Singh and others4, laid down the scope and

ambit of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article

227 and prescribed the limitations as follows:

(1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 118 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

(i) The scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted.

(ii) The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

(iii) That the power of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(iv) That the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as the Court of Appeal; the High Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a Court of Appeal.

40. In all, the exercise of supervisory power is not available to

correct mere error of fact or of law unless the following

requirements are satisfied:

(i) The error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017

ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and