Telangana High Court

Syed Waheedunnisa Nuzhat vs The Chief Commissioner Of Land ... on 21 March, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            AND
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR


                           W.P. No.15956 of 2023


ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)

Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar H for the petitioners.

Learned Additional Advocate General and the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to

declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not releasing the property

in Survey No.46, Raidurg, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, measuring Acs.84.30 guntas (hereinafter referred to as

'the subject property') by duly issuing notification under Section 64 as

prescribed under the Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli to the petitioners

being successor-in-interest of the originally owner late Syed Akbar

Hussaini as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the

respondent No.1/Court of Wards/CCLA to issue a Gazette Notification

for withdrawal of Superitendence under Section 64 of the Court of

Wards Act, 1350F, which is mandatory, over the subject property

based on the Firman dated 17th Ramzan 1348H and the Succession

approved by HEH The Nizam in the year 1948 in favour of the

petitioners and other successors-in-interest of Syed Akbar Hussain.

2 HAC, J & NVSK, J

2. The petitioner No.1, Syed Waheedunnisa Nuzhat, is represented

by the petitioner No.2, M/s. Lorven Projects Limited, in the capacity of

General Power of Attorney.

3. Brief facts of the case stated are that the Subject property

originally belongs to the ancestor of the Petitioner No.1, Late Syed

Akbar Hussaini, S/o. Late Syed Mohammed Shah. The said Syed

Akbar Hussaini expired on 9th Rabi-al-Thani 1343H and thereafter

disputes arose among the family members. One of his wives by name

Rasool Bee raised a succession dispute and filed a petition before

H.E.H. The Nizam, by exercising sovereign powers under Section 13 of

the Court of Wards Act, 1350F, placed various properties left behind

by Late Syed Akbar Hussaini, which include 10 movables and 11

immovable properties, under the Superintendence of Court of Wards

and issued Royal Firman dated 18th Rajab 1343H (Gregorian Year

1922). When the Subject property was under the Superintendence of

the Court of Wards, along with other 20 properties, a series of

negotiations have been held and compromises were reduced in writing

among the heirs of Syed Akbar Hussaini by way of three compromises.

Thereafter, the H.E.H. The Nizam approved the 3rd Compromise dated

12th Amardad 1337F and issued a Firman dated 17th Ramzan 1348H

directing the authorities to arrange all the deeds and things as per the

compromise deed dated 12th Amardad 1337F. Accordingly,

Succession Certificate was issued by the authorities in 1358F

(Gregorian Year 1948). It is further submitted that the subject 3 HAC, J & NVSK, J

properties, along with Yenkepalli Makta and Big House, were finally to

be released as per the approved ratios and that except the subject

property other properties belonging to Syed Akbar Hussain were

released. As such, there is a dispute regarding the title of the subject

property now succeeded by the petitioners.

4. It is further submitted that some third parties claiming to be the

purchasers of the subject property approached the Court by filing

O.S. No.74/1978 seeking a declaration and injunction and another

suit i.e. O.S. No.47/1985 was also filed by the heirs of Syed Akbar

Hussaini claiming that the subject property was not released from the

Superintendence of Court of Wards. Both the suits were dismissed on

17.04.1997 on the ground that the subject property was Government

land, thereafter, appeals were filed in A.S. No.62/1997 &

A.S. No.22/1999 and the same were also dismissed on 06.12.1999.

Thereafter, second appeal in S.A. No.1118/1999 was filed and the

said Second Appeal was allowed on 15.07.2009, however,

the Government carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No.2436 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (c)

No.24150/2010) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

01.03.2016 remanded the matter to the High Court with a timeline to

decide the matter in one year. On remand, the said

S.A. No.1118/1999 was heard in length and the Court pronounced

the judgment on 24.03.2023 wherein it is held that the subject

property in Sy.No.46 measuring Acs.84.30 gts., at Raidurg was placed 4 HAC, J & NVSK, J

under supervision of the Court of Wards by Firman, H.E.H.

The Nizam. In the said judgment in para 94, it was held that "...I hold

that the suit property is still under Superintendence of court of wards

and not released." While the property was kept under Superintendence

of court of wards under Section 13 of the Act, physical possession

vests with the legal heirs of Syed Akbar Hussaini. The Court on

hearing the Second Appeal S.A. No.1118/1999, negated the claim of

the subsequent purchasers. Similarly, the Court negated the claim of

the subject lands as Government lands. It is submitted that in the

S.A. No.1118/1999 the Petitioner No.1 (Syed Waheedunnissa Nuzhat)

contested as Respondent No.20 and impleaded as legal heir of original

defendant No.6.

5. It is further submitted that earlier the heirs of late Akbar

Hussaini have also filed writ petitions for release of the subject

property from the Superintendence of the Court of Wards i.e.

W.P. No.11357/2012 and W.P. No.18983/2018. Respondent No.1 & 2

(CCLA & Principal Secretary Revenue) jointly filed a Counter Affidavit

in W.P. No.18983/2018 dated 09.08.2018 in which, they admitted on

oath that the subject property is under the Superintendence of Court

of Wards. Based on the counter affidavit in W.P. No.18983/2018,

the Division Bench of this Court directed the CCLA to dispose of the

pending Application No.NA2/523/2005, renumbered as NA2/95/2012

in three months. It is further submitted that CCLA has not complied

with the High Court orders till date. The Court of Wards on hearing 5 HAC, J & NVSK, J

the Applicants in NA2/95/2012 sent a status report on 18.01.2020.

In this status report, there was a reference to the orders passed in

Contempt Appeal Case No.33/2017, LPA No.1/2018 based on the

assignment of decree in C.S. No.7 of 1958. The Judgment in

S.A. No.1118/1999, dated 24.03.2023, para No.83 & 117 held that

these are unconnected to the subject property. Cases or Judgments

arising out of these i.e. SLP (C) No.24646-24647/2018 and SLP

No.19647-19648/2022 are also unconnected to the subject property.

It is further submitted that the CCLA was never made party to these

cases. It is also submitted that Court of Wards on hearing the

Applicants in NA2/95/2012 on 18.01.2020 has recorded that CCLA is

in continuous supervision over the land.

6. It is further submitted that the orders passed by this Court in

W.Ps. No.41272/2017, 16639/2020 and 18265/2021 dated

04.01.2023 for appointing the Receivers-cum-Commissioners to draw

a final decree in C.S. No.7/1958 is also not connected to the subject

property, as it is declared as Court of Wards Custody property in the

Judgment in S.A. No.1118/1999 dated 24.03.2023.

7. It is further submitted that under Section 60 of the Court of

Wards Act, all the successors of Syed Akbar Hussaini based on the

Nizam Approved Succession in 1948, have come together and filed a

suit for partition in O.S. No.703/2017 on the file of the XV Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, which was

decreed on 27.03.2019, wherein CCLA and Petitioner No.2 (Lorven 6 HAC, J & NVSK, J

Projects Ltd) were made party to the said suit and by virtue of the

decree dated 27.03.2019 in O.S. No.703/2017, in the latest

succession for the subject property, wherein the parties succeeding to

the subject property have authorized Petitioner No.2 (Lorven Projects

Ltd) to be their Registered General Power of Attorney to execute the

work, solve the litigations, encroachments, conduct legal proceedings

to release the subject property from the Court of Wards.

8. It is further submitted that to protect the subject land from the

third parties, Petitioner No.2 (Lorven Projects Ltd) filed an Injunction

suit in O.S. No.477/2017 on the file of XV Additional District Judge,

Kukatpally, wherein CCLA and Collector was also made parties to the

said suit. In the said suit, the Court granted Injunction restraining

the respondents/defendants, their men, agents and third parties from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject property.

The said order is in force as on date.

9. It is further submitted that though the Court of Wards (CCLA) is

under statutory duty to issue Gazette Notification under Section 64 of

the Court of Wards Act, which is mandatory, failed to issue the

notification even after Judgment confirming the title of the Petitioners

in S.A. No.1118/1999 dated 24.03.2023, even after receiving the

Petitioner's application dated 15.05.2023 & 22.05.2023 and even after

the High Court has confirmed that the subject property is under the

Superintendence of the Court of Wards and the same is not of the

Government and that the lis regarding the title and succession of the 7 HAC, J & NVSK, J

subject property is concluded and the proceedings before the Court of

Wards (CCLA) is being continuing more than nine decades despite

there being the orders by the High Court two times, beginning from

W.P. No.11357/2012 and W.P. No.18983/2018. The Court of Wards

(CCLA) is a Quasi-judicial authority, however, it is acting in the

interest of third parties to help them and is in violation of the

Petitioners' rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed the

present writ petition.

10. Apart from the above, the petitioners, while reiterating the writ

averments, also filed Additional Affidavit, inter alia, stating that the

present writ petition was heard on 04.08.2023 and this Court directed

the petitioners to submit their objections to the report filed by the

Receivers-cum-Commissioners and incompliance of the said order,

the petitioners filed this additional affidavit. It is further submitted

that the legal heirs of the Akbar Hussaini have not only succeeded in

proving their title to the subject property but also expressed their

concern over the inaction of the respondent No.1 by filing writ

petitions in W.P. Nos.11356/2012 and 18983/2023 for not releasing

the subject property by duly issuing the notification under Section 64

as mandated under the provisions of the Court of Wards Act, 1350

Fasli. It is further submitted that on 06.07.2023 a detailed report was

submitted to this Court by the Receivers-cum-Commissioners. In para

90.1 of the report held that "It becomes clear from the perusal of 8 HAC, J & NVSK, J

Judgment in S.A. No.111/1999 dated 24.03.2023, land admeasuring

Acs.84.30 guntas in Sy.No.46, Raidurg is still under the

Superintendence of Court of Wards and not released." In para 95.2 of

the Receivers-cum-Commissioners report held that "Hence the order in

Application No.1409/2003 dated 26.12.2003 passing final decree in

respect of Item 234 (i.e. the subject property) of 'A' Schedule of the

preliminary decree in C.S. No.7 of 1958 which is the basis for filing

W.P. No.1729/2009, Contempt Case CC. No.217/2014, 33/2017, LPA.

No.1/2018, SLP (C) No.24646-7/2018, RIA No.1/2020 and RIA

No.3/2020 in LPA. No.1/2018 and C.A. No.33/2017 do not make the

so called final decree holder entitle to claim ownership rights and title in

respect of such properties and such orders do not bind the government

or any party."

11. It is further submitted that the ownership claim over the subject

property allegedly citing the assignment deed and therefore passing of

the final decree in favour of the assignors was annulled and held that

the assignees cannot claim ownership rights over the subject property,

identified as item No.234 under Schedule 'A' of preliminary decree in

C.S. No.7/1958 which was excluded in the preliminary decree itself.

Further the report dated 06.07.2023 submitted by the Receiver-cum-

Commissioners in C.S. No.7/1958, the judgment dated 24.03.2023 in

Second Appeal No.1118/1999 (remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court) and the counter affidavit dated 09.08.2018 in

W.P. No.18983/2018 by respondents 1 and 2 clearly clarifies that the 9 HAC, J & NVSK, J

subject property is under the superintendence of Court of Wards

belongs to late Syed Akbar Hussaini, not released till date.

12. On behalf of the respondents no counter affidavit has been filed.

13. At this juncture, it is significant to note that the Division Bench

of this Court had closed the C.S. No.7 of 1958 on 09.01.2025.

It is necessary to extract the relevant paras No.38, 39 and 40, which

reads as under:

"38. Learned counsel for the final decree holders in Appl.No.519 of 2009 has filed Additional Material Papers wherein a copy of the order of Commissioner of Survey Settlement - Inam releasing Maktha lands dated 30.12.1977 was enclosed. However, no document has been filed to the extent of release order pertaining to

mentioned in the preliminary decree. At this juncture, it is necessary to verify the list in 'A' Schedule of the preliminary decree. In the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959, list of Maktas (under appeal with Revenue Board) are mentioned which are as follows:

230. Maktah Bahadur Ali

231. Maktah Ootapalli

232. Maktah Shivarampalli

233. Maktah Balapoor

234. Maktah Raidurg

235. Maktah Sough Bowli

236. Maktah Somajiguda

237. Maktah Nawab (Sahah)

238. Maktah Mama Hamukunta

239. Maktah Bagh Kakgud 10 HAC, J & NVSK, J

240. Maktah Hajialigud

241. Maktah Permit Shah Guda

242. Maktah Muzhar Guda

243. Maktah Bagh Mecca ahmoo

244. Maktah Amjad Nagar

245. Maktah Mohammed Nagar

246. Maktah Sangi Guda

247. Maktah Ali Sahab

248. Maktah Chitaguda

249. Maktah Yellakur

250. Maktah Yerwagua

251. Maktah Kol Bowli

252. Maktah Shamshiguda

253. Maktah Rai Samand E

254. Maktah Roshan Bowli

39. It is also striking to note that though the orders were passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement - Inam on 30.12.1977, the so called release of Makta lands was brought to the notice of this Court for the first time during the hearing of applications filed for passing of final decree and delivery of possession of those lands which have not been included in item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule 'A' of preliminary decree. It is also pertinent to note that learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the objectors placed heavy reliance on the said release order dated 30.12.1977. However, no proof of release of Makta lands pertaining to item Nos.230 to 254 is filed.

It is also to be noted that when the order was passed way back in the year 1977, the concerned parties ought to have taken steps to include the extent of lands released if any, in item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule 'A' of preliminary decree.

The submissions in respect of such lands in item 11 HAC, J & NVSK, J

Nos.230 to 254 were made at the time of hearing objections to the report of receiver cum commissioner dated 06.07.2023.

40. As such, the submissions made on behalf of the objectors are unsustainable and in that view of the matter, it can safely be concluded that no lands are available for partition in item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule 'A' attached to the preliminary decree. In the absence of preliminary decree for item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule 'A', no final decree could have been passed. Therefore, reports filed earlier are without proper verification, are fictitious and the same are treated as nullity and are hereby rejected. Accordingly point Nos.1, 2 and 3 are answered against the objectors.

14. From the above, it is clear that the subject property is at

Sl.No.234 Maktha Raidurg in Schedule 'A' of preliminary decree dated

06.04.1959, which is not released in favour of the parties in C.S. No.7

of 1958 and is not available for partition. It is to be noted that the

petitioners herein are not the parties in C.S. No.7 of 1958 proceedings.

Further, no documents have been filed to the extent of release order

pertaining to the land in respect of Item Nos.230 to 254 Schedule 'A'

mentioned in the preliminary decree. Since the parties are pursuing

the subject matter with the respondent No.1, at this stage,

no mandamus can be issued as prayed for in the present writ petition

and the petitioners may seek appropriate remedy as available under

law.