Khazi Md. Khaleelurrahman vs The Government Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2418 Tel

Telangana High Court

Khazi Md. Khaleelurrahman vs The Government Of Telangana on 27 June, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

                                        1



          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     WRIT PETITION No.31877 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus, seeking the

following reliefs:

(a) To declare the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Dept., Waqf-1 Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, is illegal, consequently to quash the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012.

(b) To direct the first respondent/Government of Telangana, to consider the representation dt.17.10.2023 of the petitioner in appointing him as Khazi to KhilaGhanpura and other Paraganas like Ghanpur, Kandoor, Yanmangandla, Avancha, Thatikonda, Badepalle, Kodagal, Lingumpet, Amarabad, thimmajimpeta, Rudraram, Sankalmaddi, Devarakadra, Jadcherla, Kalwakurthy etc., Paraganas of the then combined Mahabubnagar District, and pass orders as are fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

2. Heard Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner;

and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents 1

and 2; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3; and

Sri Shafath Ahmad Khan for respondent No.4.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the writ affidavit, is that

the respondent No.4 is a third person and in no way connected to the

Khaziship to Khila ghanpur and other paraganas; that during the lifetime

of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, his cousin Khazi Md. Abdul Rahman S/o Md

Hassan, who is the great grandfather of petitioner have been rendering

services of Khazayath of Khila Ghanpura paraganas with half share each;

that Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin had no male lineal descendant and adopted

Md. Omer who is daughter's son and as per Muslim personal law

maternal grandson has no right over Khazayath. The respondent No.4

himself styled as Khazi filed a fake genealogy/family tree with the

support of Abdul Rahman, by obtaining the names of his family members

and relatives in the letter of the then District collector, dated 04.09.1997;

that on the death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, the entire Khazayath and

Khazi services fall on Khazi and Khazi services fall on Khazi Abdul

Rahman S/o Md. Hassan, who was the male lineal descendant to Asaldar

Khazi shaik Rafiuddin S/o Late Shaik Hassan; that as per partition deed,

Khazi Abdul rahman was the half shareholder of Khazayat; that on the

death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin as per Muslim law, the share of Khazi

Gulam Mohiuddin also fell to the petitioner's great grandfather late Khazi

Abdul Rahman. These facts are supported by Munthaqab No.3846 of

1310 Fasli and Munthaqab No.4846 of 1310 Fasli. It is also relevant to

state that the then District Collector in file No.B2/8597/1995 dated

17.09.1997 also conducted that the petitioner and hs brothers are the

Successors-in-interest and are the legal heirs to Asaldar Khazi Shaik

Rafiuddin S/o late Shaik Hassan, however the then District Collector

incorrectly came to the conclusion that Md. Qutubuddin and gulam

Mohiuddin are equal shareholders; that the 4th respondent mislead the

Government and filed fake documents and illegally got appointed as

Khazi, and sold away the lands connected to Khazayath services and

created third party interests, and they obtained pattadar passbooks and

title deeds, but all the Inams in Telangana ought to have been dealt with

under the TelanganaInams Abolition Act only and then pattas ought

tohave ben granted in the names of Successors-in-interest; that the

genealogy filed with the writ petition would establish the real successors-

in interest of Khazi; that the 4th respondent is an imposter and obtained

GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and committed several illegalities; that in

his representation to Principal Secretary, he stated his name as Khazi

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o Khazi Ahmed Mohiuddin; and filed WP

No.25616 of 1998 before this Court and the same was dismissed on

11.09.1998 against which W.A.No.1526 of 1998 was filed and same was

dismissed on 21.09.1998; that as per the election card, the 4th

respondent is named as Khazi Syed Ghouse, now the present name is

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Shah Kadari S/o Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin and

he filed various fake documents from the office of Tahsildar, RDO and

Office of District Collector and managed to see that he was appointed as

Khazi under Section 2 of Khazi Act and he does not belong to Khazi

family; that in the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 it is stated that the

then District Collector is said to have recommended the 4th

respondent/Syed ghouse Mohiuddin on the alleged reports which are not

legally correct, and no Mohammedan of the paraganas have issued any

application to recommend the then District Collector to appoint 4th

respondent/Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin as Khazi of Khila ghanpur

paraganas; that the true purport of Section 2 of Khazis Act stipulates

that the Government must make an enquiry with local considerable

number of Mohammadans in the villages which are within Khila

Ghanpur whereas the 4th respondent obtained letters from the Minister

for Minorities Welfare, MLAs and MPs; that the District Collector,

Mahabubnagar, in his letter dated 17.09.1997 clearly stated that as per

Memo dated 10.04.1995, in Telangana Region, Office of Khaziship is

hereditary succession, but in GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012, the

government opined that Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880 must be applied;

that on scrupulous reading of above section, Section 2 of the Khazis Act

gets applied to places where original male lineal descendants /

successors-in-interest / legal heirs are not available; that under a D.O.

Letter dated 05.11.1998 the then Principal Secretary to government,

Minorities Welfare Department, addressed a letter to the then District

Collector, Mahabubnagar District, wherein it was sought to make

necessary enquiry under Section 2 of Khazis Act, regarding the

appointment of Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin, S/o Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin;

that through this letter, the District Revenue Officer and Additional

District Magistrate addressed a letter to the RDO, Mahabubnagar

through D.O.Letter dated 16.11.1998 wherein the DRO asked the RDO

Mahabubnagar to make enquiry under Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880,

and that letter was also addressed to the RDO, Nagarkurnool and RDO,

Wanaparthy; that in reply to the D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998, the RDO

Mahabubnagar did not make enquiry correctly and is relied on the

incorrect representations of 4th respondent / Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin,

and suddenly came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent is

hereditary successor to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin s/o Shaik

Hassan; that the Munthakab Nos.3846 and 4846 of 1310 Fasli equal to

1990 AD belong to the petitioners and 3 others ancestors, does not

belong to 4th respondent; that the enquiry by the then RDO

Mahabubnagar in file bearing No.K/2230/1997 dated 22.04.1999 is

against the truth and basic documents issued by the then Hon'ble

Revenue Minister and Chief Justice of Ecclesiastical Court; that the Chief

Justice issued Sanad in Athiyath Branch II as Faisalnama which

belonged to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o ShaikHasan; that the

above said Sanad Munthakab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli equal to 1900 AD

was prepared by the then Nizam Government; that in this judgment only

the names of late Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin S/o late Khazi MdKhasim and

late Khazi Md Abdul Rahman S/o late Khazi Md Hasan were recorded

but the 4th respondent made use of above Muthakhabs as if the Asaldar

Khazi was his ancestor; that late Khazi Md. Abdul Rahman S/o late

Khazi Md. Hasan is no other than great grandfather of the petitioner and

three others; that it is un-understandable how RDO, Mahabubnagar

suddenly concluded that this 4th respondent/Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin is

the successor-in interest in order to have hereditary succession to him;

that it can be safely be concluded that the RDO, Mahabubnagar in file

No.K/2230/1997 dated 22.04.1999 no correct enquiry was made; that in

reply to D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998 addressed by the then DRO,

Mahabubnagar, the RDO, Nagarkurnool in his letter dated 06.03.1999

and dated 19.12.1998 unfortunately relied on the misleading information

furnished by 4th respondent regarding the documents and genealogy; that

RDO, Nagarkurnool suddenly concluded that 4th respondent is the

hereditary successor; that the RDO, Wanaparthy also committed error in

relying on the misinformation and fake documents filed by 4th respondent

and concluded that 4th respondent is the hereditary successor, and thus

the very purpose of letter of the then Principal Secretary to Government,

MW Dept., D.O.Letter dated 05.11.1998 was defeated and no purpose

was served; that all the RDOs of Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool and

Wanaparthy gave incorrect reports and that they could not find out real

successors-in-interest and male lineal descendants of Asaldar Khazi

Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that based on above reports of RDOs

the then District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in his letter dated 28.06.1999

gave incorrect report to the Secretary to Govt., MW Dept., the 4th

respondent entered into Government records and became permanent

Khazi under GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012; that the 4th respondent

obtained a fake residential certificate on which date is not specified from

the Sarpanch, Thimmajipet, he is the resident of Thimmajipet; that he

obtained letters from Minister of Medical and Health Family Welfare and

several others; that it is to note that in all the letters addressed to the

Principal Secretary to Govt. MW Dept., AP Secretariat in which the

subject is MW Dept., Khazayath, appointment of Khazi to Ghanpur and

other Paraganas and quoted the D.O. letter dated 05.11.1998; that it is to

be noted that some of the persons who issued the letters recommending

4th respondent are not Mohammadams/Musalmans; that all those people

did not know the proceedings of D.O. letter dated 05.11.1998; that he

himself got the letters typed out by taking the above institutions letter

pads and obtained their signatures who signed them unknowingly the

true purport of Section 2 of Khazi Act and issued the letters to please 4th

respondent herein; that Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880 stipulates that the

opinions of local independent impartial Mohammadams must give

affidavits or statements by recommending the appointment of Khazi or

the Government on its own must ask the local Mohammadans to know

the need of appointment of Khazi; that the Section 2 of the Khazis Act

gets applied to the areas where there is no availability of Asaldar Khazis

or hereditary Khazis; that the aim and intention and true purport of

Section 2 of Khazis Act is defeated; that as per GOMs No.276 dated

11.03.1986 the appointment of Khazi in Telangana State is hereditary;

that Section 2 of Khazis Act is also violated insofar as the consultation of

local Mohammadans, the Government ought to have asked the

Mohammadans of residents of paraganas; whereas 4th respondent

obtained above stated letters from the Heads of Institutions in order to

exhibit is capacity to obtain letters from the Minister for Minorities

Welfare and Member of Parliament etc.; that 4th respondent and another

obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of Survey Nos.37,

38, 42, 43, 233, 234 and etc., of lands situated in Eppalapalli, Marepalli,

Narellapalli, Edirepalli, thimmajipet etc., in file bearing No.2750/1998

dated 01.05.1999 of Tahsildar/MRO Thimmajipeta; though the said

lands are KhairathiInam lands, ought to have been converted into private

patta lands under Inams Abolition Act, 1955, and its Rules, 1975; pattas

are issued directly under the ROR Act 1971 and its Rules 1989; that the

petitioner filed an application under RTI Act to get the proceedings of the

then RDO Nagarkurnool in proceedings No.1/3253/1998 dated

23.04.1999; that it is revealed on verification of the record room of RDO,

Nagarkurnool, that there is no such file bearing No.1/3253/1998 dated

23.04.1999, the copy of which is submitted; that 4th respondent is found

guilty of misconduct of his office andis punishable for removal from

Khaziship by cancelling GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012; thus 4th

respondent sold out the above said lands to various persons by creating

third party interests in Mafilnam/KhairathiInam land to which the

petitioner and 4 others are the successors-in-interest/lineal descendants;

that in file No.B2/8597/1995 dated 17.09.1997, the non-hereditary

sucessors names at page No.8, at column No.5 are shown; that under the

guise of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012, the 4th respondent sold out

several lands left and right and at his own will and pleasure in various

paraganas of Khila Ghanapur, Mahabubnagar District and under the

guise of Government Khazi, and on this ground alone this GOMs No.86

dated 27.09.2012 can be cancelled and 4th respondent can be removed

from Khaziship; that the truth is that for all these paraganas of Khila

Ghanpur, Mahabubnagar, the Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks and

title deeds and incorporated the names of various third parties' names;

the record borne facts establish that all paraganas of Khila Ghanpur,

Mahabubnagar District, is Inampatta land which was conferred to

ShaikRafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan, very long ago; for succession to the

lands only the petitioner and others are male lineal descendants and

legal heirs who filed applications for grant of ORC; that it is unknown

why the competent RDOs of Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool, Wanaparthy

did not object as to giving of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued

by Tahsildars of concerned paraganas; that any inam land in Telangana

area on the advent of Inams Abolition Act ought to have been converted

by the grant of ORC by the competent RDO only and then only the land

gets converted into private patta land and names of original owners can

be updated in Dharani portal; that the 4th respondent and Md. Saleem,

Md. Azeem, Md. Shabbir, Md. Faheem are sons of Khaja Moinuddin,

Sharfuddin, Rafiuddin, Tajuddin, Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o Ahmed

Mohiuddin, Burhauddin, Nooruddin, Nazeeruddin, Nazeemuddin,

Basheeruddin are sons of Ahmed Mohiuddin and Gulam Mohiuddin and

Nizar Mohiuddin are sons of Miskin Mohiuddin feeling themselves as

Khazis under the guise of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 sold various

lands and created third party interests at their own will and pleasure;

that the Inam Abolition Act stipulates that in spite of sales by third

parties and purchasing by third parties, right title and interest and

possession to those third parties did not accrue; that petitioner and

others are direct blood related male lineal descendants and legal heirs

among whom Md. Khaleel-ur-Rahman passed Khazi test and is legally

hereditarily entitled for appointment as Khazi, either GOMs No.244 dated

20.12.1999 are even in GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 the original

succession had not been filed but only fake successors genealogy had

been given to the office of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar who

erred and was mislead by Abdul Rahman and also 4th respondent; that

the original Munthakab No.3846 and 4846, partition deed 1283 Hizri

equal to 1867 AD are with petitioner and others herein; several

documents prepared by the then Inam Commissioner Rasool Yar Khan,

Chief Judge, Ecclessiastical Court judgment Branch II establish that only

the petitioner and others herein are the original successors-in-interest;

that it is noteworthy to observe that when the Thasildar, Thimmajipet, in

his letter bearing No.J/2999/1995, dated 26.08.1995, addressed to the

then RDO, Nagarkurnool, the name of 4th respondent is not found place;

From J/2999/1995 dated 26.08.1995, the RDO, Nagarkurnool, in his

letter bearing No.1/1665/88 dated 02.01.1996 quoting the above enquiry

of the Tahsildar, Thimmajipet, addressed this letter to the then District

Collector, Mahbubnagar; that in this letter also the name of 4th

respondent is not found place; that the word "Syed" is not used to any

one of the legal heirs of Asaldar Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that

it is a significant fact that all of a sudden in the letter bearing

No.B2/8597/19985 dated 17.09.1997 the names of Sharfuddin,

Rahimuddin, Tajuddin, Ghouse Mohiuddin, Burhauddin, Nooruddin,

Nazeeruddin, Nazamuddin, Basheeruddin are sons of Ahmed Mohiuddin

Gulam Mohiuddin and Nissar Mohiuddin are sons of Miskin Mohiuddin

had been included as if though they are not successors-in-interest of

Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o Shaik Hassan; that Mohammad

Saleem, Mohammad Azeem, Mohammed Shabbir, Mohammed Faheem all

are sons of Khaja Moinuddin, had been cropped up on the basis of self-

created partition deed and self-created affidavit filed by this 4th

respondent; that this affidavit dated 28.05.1997 or even partition

deed/family settlement deed dated 30.07.1998 are fake; that this family

settlement deed is undated in the last page of the settlement deed, the

left hand thumb impression and signatures of various persons are

obtained on blank paper and they are not shown in each page; that the

petitioner obtained certified copies of all Muthakabs, Sanads, partition

deeds etc., from the Office of State Archives which are the judgments of

the then Board of Revenue, Athiyyat Branch II; that these documents had

been prepared by the then Nizam government officials and a detailed

Inam enquiry had been conducted by the then Inam commissioner

Rasool Yar Khan; that this 4th respondent is totally a third party and by

submitting fake/fabricated documents by making fake claim and by

submitting the recommendation letters from MP, MLA, Minister for

Minorities Welfare and got the correspondence made in his favour from

Tahsildars or RDOs; that he is a cheater; that as to filing of various fake

documents before the officers, in District Collectorate, Mahabubnagar

and other officers, the petitioner is instituting cases before criminal

Court; that on the representations by the petitioners and others, the

Government of Telangana, Minority Welfare (Estt-I) Department in their

Memo Nos. dated 12.10.2021 and 01.04.2022 and several memos

directed the lower officers to submit detailed report by Secretary to

Government, but no action was taken; that the District Collector,

Mahabubnagar in his letter addressed to Principal Secretary to

Government, Minority Welfare Department, stated that the matter is

already sub-judice before this Court and there are no complaints against

4th respondent, as such District Collector found fault with petitioner and

others stating that the petitioners and others suppressed material facts

and filed representations and asked to reject the applications; that the

appointment of 4th respondent under GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012

must be cancelled; that the petitioner is eligible for appointment of

Khaziship either under successors-in-interest of original Asaldar Khazi by

name late Shaik Rafiuddin or even under Section 2 of Khazis Act, 1880;

that the manner in which 4th respondent mislead the District Collectors

in representation dated 24.05.2023 stating various writ petitions are

pending before this Court, but the truth is several miscellaneous

petitions were filed to expedite WP No.21114 of 2014 filed by Shaik Jilani

and those applications were shown by 4th respondent as separate writ

petitions; that the 4th respondent mislead the Government by filing fake

genealogy and managed to get Khaziship and misused his post and when

the petitioners and others filed representations before the District

Collector, the District Collector incorrectly opined that the petitioners

contention for appointment of Khaziship is incorrect; that the letter of

District Collector Mahabubnagar addressed to all the District Collectors

which come under area of Khaziyat of SarkarkhilaGhanpur as per

Muntakab No.3846 and 4846 of 1310 Fasli equal to 1900 AD, and this

misleading information is only on account of cheating by 4th respondent

and therefore the G.O.Ms.86 dated 27.09.2012 requires to be quashed in

the interest of justice.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. The sum and

substance of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner filed an

application dated 17.10.2023 with the Government stating that he is

hereditary successor as per family pedigree, they are Muntakhab holders

No.3846 and 4846 of certain KhairatiInam lands and are original

successor-in-interest and requested the Government to order a thorough

enquiry into the appointment of 4th respondent as Khazi to cancel

GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and appoint him as Khazi for Qila

Ghanpur and other patties. It is stated that the District Collector,

Mahabubnagar submitted his report stating that petitioner filed

representation dated 10.11.2021 stating that they are from Khazi families

of Sarkar Qilaghanpur (B. Paraganas) they got succession certificate

through City Civil Court in OS No.1516 of 2010, and they filed WP

No.22405 of 2013 before this Court with a request to consider their

representation; that Khazi Sri Md. Abdul Rahman died and post is vacant

and requested to consider their representation to appoint as Sadar Khazi

of Sarkar Qila Ghanpur. It is stated that this Court while disposing of WP

No.22405 of 2013 directed the Government to pass appropriate orders on

the applications of the petitioner within a period of two months, and in

compliance of the orders, the Government after careful consideration

rejected the petitioner's representation mentioning that as per Section 2

of Khazi Act, 1880, the State Government may, if it think fit, after

consulting Principal Mohammadan residents of such local area, select

one or more fit persons and appoint him/them to be Khazi or Khais for

such local areas, Mohammedan Law does not regard the Office of Khazi

as hereditary. It is stated that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar again

reported vide letter dated 20.03.2023 stating that the Government vide

Memo dated 03.05.2014 already rejected the request of Mohd Hussian,

MA Aziz, Mohd Abdul Raheem, Mohd Khaleelur Rahman and Mohd

Waheedur Rahman for their appointment as Government Khazi on

hereditary basis to Sarkar Qila Ghanpur and other patties of

Mahabubnagar District, and that petitioner filed WP No.21114 of 2014

before this Court with interlocutory applications and the petitioner has

been repeatedly filing representation to the Government with the same

plea without waiting for final judgment by this Court; that based on the

enquiry report of District Collector, Mahabubnagar dated 22.01.2022, the

Government vide Memo dated 24.02.2022 once again rejected the request

of the petitioner for appointment as Khazis; and that in reply to

paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7, 32, 33, 36 and 39 of the writ affidavit, it is stated

that the petitioner claiming that subject Qazzath is attached with

KhairathiInam lands which were freely conferred by the then Nizam

Government for the purpose of Qazzath Services and the attached

landsin various survey numbers have been given to Asaldar Khazi

Rafiuddin, the ancestor of petitioner and his brothers who are the

successors-in-interest and legal heirs of above Asaldar Khazi; that the

petitioner's case pertains to Atiyat Court wherein succession issue is

involved and involving Waqf lands and object of Waqf is for rendering the

services of Qazzath; that the petitioner is supposed to approach the RDO

Mahabubnagar, in this matter being the succession issue by virtue of

Munthaqab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli and Muthaqab No.4846 of 1310 Fasli

respectively as the RDO is the competent authority to decide his case

under Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952; that in reply to para 8, it is further

submitted that the petitioner has to approach the Telangana State Waqf

Board for the protection, alienation and encroachment of Khairathi Inam

lands as alleged in para 6 of the writ petition; that the respondent is not

dealing with the subject of AP (TA) Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952, because

the Government only deals with appointment under the Khazis Act, 1880

not by Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952 and petitioner's case pertains to

Atiyath Enquiries Act as succession matter may involve therein; that

Section 1 of Khazis Act, 1880 deals with applicability of the Act; that the

Government after careful examination of the enquiry report of District

Collector, Mahabubnagar that the 4th respondent was appointed to act as

Government Khazi on tenure basis in GOMs.No.244 dated 20.12.1999;

he was attacked with paralysis and unable to walk or talk on his own

and he was bed ridden; thus he was removed from duties of Government

Khazi with immediate effect and the respondent No.3 Ghouse who is also

appointed to act as Government Khazi on tenure basis for Sarkar

Ghanpur and other patties was hereby appointed on regular basis with

immediate effect to perform marriages and other religious ceremonies in

Muslim community vide GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012; that in reply to

para 16, 26 and 28, it is stated that requirement under Section 2 of

Khazis Act, 1880 of consultation with Principal Mohammedan of local

area, the area being specified in the Schedule has been fulfilled; that the

request of petitioner for appointment as Government Khazi was already

rejected by the 2nd respondent vide Government Memo dated 03.05.2014

and 24.02.2022 and it was not feasible for consideration and he

suppressed real facts and misguided the officials as their petition was

already rejected by Government.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4. The sum and

substance of the counter is that the concept of succession by means of

hereditary to inherit the post of Khazi as successor in interest of Asaldar

Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin is not valid and legally not sustainable in view of

the fact that the Government of Hyderabad published in the Gazette

notification dated 03.08.1954 that Kazis Act 1880 shall extend to whole

of Hyderabad city; that the genealogy or family tree is not applicable in

the matter of appointment of Khazi, as either Mohammedan law or Kazi

Act has not recognized the hereditary concept of appointment of Khazi;

the claim of petitioner that respondent No.4 did not belong to family

pedigree is baseless; that the petitioner has alternative remedy available

under relevant provision of law to agitate the matter before appropriate

authority; that respondent No.4 was appointed vide GOMs No.86 of 2012

dated 27.09.2012 on the basis of eligibility and competency and invoking

Section 2 of Kazi Act and following due process of law after due enquiry;

that the act of petitioner in keeping silent for more than 12 years of

appointment of respondent No.4 as Khazi without challenging the same

is hit by doctrine of estoppel by conduct; that after publication of

notification in the year 1954 dated 03.08.1954, the Kazi Act, 1880 is

alone applicable and it is not concerned if applicants are male lineal

descendants of Khazi late Rafiuddin in view of application of Kazi Act

after 1954; that there is no need for respondent No.4 to produce fake

residential certificate and that he belongs to Ghanpur paragana in

Mahabubnagar District; that the Muntakhab issued by erstwhile Nizam

Government has no legal validity after issuance of Gazette notification I

the year 1954 dated 03.08.1954 adopting Kazi Act for State ofHyderabad;

that Section 2 of the Kazi Act clearly laid down that the appointment

shall have to be made base on the demand and desire of local

Mohammadans of the area but hereditary concept is neither recognized

by Mohammadan law nor by Kazi Act; that the Dsitrict Collector,

Mahabubnagar conducted enquiry and submitted detailed report to the

1st respondent; that the 1st respondent issued Memo dated 24.02.2022 by

rejecting the application of petitioner; that the writ petition is filed after a

delay of 12 years challenging the GOMs No.86 of 2012 dated 27.09.2012

through which the respondent No.4 was appointed as Khazi and there is

no survival of cause of action at present and the petitioner failed to plea

any question of law.

6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner inter alia contending that

the issuance of Government Memo dated 03.05.2014 itself is illegal and

rejecting the claim of petitioner is illegal; that the rejection of petitioner's

case by the District Collecto vide Memo dated 24.02.2022 is illegal; that

the lands were sold by respondent No.4 under sale deed document

No.4668 of 2005 and it is a serious misconduct and therefore the

GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 needs to be quashed; that the lands are

Khairathi Inam lands given freely to Asaldar Khazi for Khazayath

services; that the Telangana Waqf Board is no way connected to

Khairathi Inam lands; that without understanding the purport of Section

2 of the Kazi Act, respondent No.4 was appointed; that the Government

obtained 21 unrelated recommendations from Minister for Minorities

Welfare, MLAs and MPs and several other Hindus also; that this Court in

1991(1) An.WR 596 held that the office of Khazi is hereditary one to

which inams are attached; that as per Hyderabad Government Gazette

notification dated 03.08.1954, the Khazi is appointed as per Section 2 of

Kazi Act, but the truth is the Gazette notification could not foresee or

contemplate the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955; that under Inams Act,

1955, only eligible persons from Section 4 to 8 are entitled for grant of

ORC, in the lands attached to Khazayath service of Sarkar Khila

Ghanpur and other 8 paraganas, only Inamdars, the petitioner is one of

them under Section 4 of the Act; that respondent No.4 is a unconnected

and a third party to the inam lands attached to Khazayath service; that it

is correct to appoint the petitioner as Khazi to Sarkar Khila Ghanpur and

other parganas and to see that service inam lands are converted through

the successors-in-interest as settled by this Court in 2023(1) ALT 83 FB

(TS); that the petitioner gave proper reply to the Government Memo dated

03.05.2014; that the prayer of WP No.21114 of 2014 is different from the

present writ petition; that the petitioner has been agitating this grievance

since 2010 and therefore the ground that the writ petition was filed after

lapse of 12 years is not tenable; and that respondent No.4 is committing

illegalities by selling the lands which is serious misconduct and the

Government is empowered to remove him and therefore the GOMs No.86

dated 27.09.2012 is illegal and therefore the same may be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on

the lines of writ affidavit and reply affidavit would primarily contend that

rejection of petitioner's application for appointment as Kazi is illegal, and

the respondent No.4 appointment is illegal as Section 2 of the Kazi At is

violated, and respondent No.4 is committing irregularities by selling of

the Kazayath lands and that is a misconduct and therefore the 1st

respondent is empowered to remove him from the post; and the petitioner

has been agitating his grievance since 2010 and hence the plea that the

writ petition is filed after a lapse of 12 years is not tenable and therefore

the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 would primarily submit

that respondent No.4 was appointed after due enquiry by the District

Collector after consulting the local Mohammadans of the area and

respondent No.4 is eligible for appointment and the concept of heredity in

appointment of Kazi is not contemplated under the Kazi Act, 1880 and

the allegations that respondent No.4 is selling away the lands of

Kazayath is baseless and the 1st respondent after considering the

application and enquiry rejected the application of petitioner for

appointment as Kazi and therefore there is no illegality in GOMs No.86

dated 27.09.2012 and hence there is no merit in the writ petition.

9. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 while drawing

attention to various averments in their counter affidavit would inter alia

contend that the Government after careful examination and enquiry on

the application of the petitioner for appointment as Kazi of QilaGhanpur

and other paraganas, rejected his application and the appointment of

respondent No.4 was done after due enquiry and consultation from local

Mohammadans of the area and therefore the writ petition is devoid of

merit and liable to be dismissed.

10. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the

material on record, it is relevant to extract Section 2 of the Kazis Act,

1880 which reads as under:

"Section 2: Power to appoint Kazis for any local area.

Wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Ka'zi's should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Ka'zi's for such local area.

If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Ka'zi' under this section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive.

The State Government may, if it thinks fit, suspend or remove any Ka'zi' appointed under this section who is guilty of any misconduct in the execution of his office, or who is for a continuous period of six months absent from the local area for which he is appointed, or leaves such local area for the purpose of residing elsewhere, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the office, or who refuses or becomes in the opinion of the State Government unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office."

11. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 has been functioning as

Kazi since 2012 vide GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012. Further, as per

paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.1:

"7. It is submitted that, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar submitted his report stating among others vide letter dated Nil, that petitioner filed representation dated 10.11.2021, stating thaty are from Khazi families of SarkarQilaghanpur (8 Paraganas), they got Succession Certificate through City Civil Court in O.S.No.1516/2010. Further, they filed W.P.No.22405/2013 in the Hon'ble High Court with a request to consider their representation. The petitioner further stated that, Khazi Sri Md. Abdul Rahman died and post is vacant and requested to consider their representation to appoint as Sadar Khazi of Sarkar Qila ghanpur. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court while disposing W.P.no.22405/2013, directed the then Government to pass appropriate orders on the applications of the petitioner within a period of (2) months. In compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 07.09.2013, the Government after careful examination of the matter for appointment of Sadar Khazi to Sarkar Qila Ghanpur the representation of the petitioner was Rejected specifically mentioned that "as per Section-2 of Khazis Act, 1880 the State

Government may, if it think fit, after consulting the Principal Mohammedan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him/them to be Khazi or Khazis for such local area, Mohammedan Law does not regard the Office of Khazi as hereditary. Claim to such right though supported by customs, is not one that can be recognized by a Civil Court, for fixed term as the Office of Khazi is not hereditary". Further as per G.O.Ms.86, dated 27.09.2012, Sri GhouseMohiuddin was appointed as Government Khazi by then Government on regular basis for Sarkar Qila Ghanpur and other patties of Mahabubnagar District. The said Khazi is discharging his duties for the above Qazzath without any complaint. Subsequently the applications filed by Sri Khaleelur Rahman and (2) others dated 10.11.2021 suppressed the real facts and misguided the officials as their petition was already Rejected by the then Government vide Memo No.5406/IDM/A/2013, dated 03.05.2014."

12. Further, with regard to the application of the petitioner before 1st

respondent, it is not in dispute that the appointment of Kazi is governed

by the Kazis Act, 1880, and Section 2 of the Kazis Act extracted above

details the process followed for appointment, and it is the specific stand

of 1st respondent basing on the report of the District Collector that the

process as contemplated under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 has been

followed by consulting the local area Mohammedans and accordingly

respondent No.4 was appointed.

13. Further, in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit of 1st respondent,

the 1st respondent has considered the request of the petitioner for

appointment of Govt. Khazi to Qila ghanpur and other patties and the

same was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide Govt. Memo

No.5406/IDM/A1/2013, dated 03.05.2014 and Govt.Memo

No.3679/Estt.I/2021-2, dated 24.02.2022, and that it was not feasible

for consideration and that the petitioner suppressed the real facts and

misguided the officials as their petition was already rejected by the

Government.

14. Further, it is to be noted that the contention of the petitioner in

paragraph 15 of the writ affidavit that Section 2 of the Kazis Act relates to

original male lineal descendants/successors in interest/legal heirs

cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that no such consideration or

procedure is contemplated under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880.

Further, the writ petition was filed after 12 years of issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 27.09.2012, and therefore, this Court does not find

any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the writ petition

is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach

the authorities and file appropriate application about selling of land by

respondent No.4, and on such representation, the respondents are

directed to examine the same after giving appropriate notice to the

concerned parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

within a period of eight weeks of such representation.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous

petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 27th June, 2024 ksm