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