Telangana High Court

Mir Mohammed Ali Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 10 September, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.7052 OF 2025
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

22.01.2025 in Case No.F3/2414/2023 passed by respondent No.2.

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) The petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors

of the land admeasuring Acs.2.36 guntas in Survey No.21, situated at

Ganeshpur Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District having

purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1

of 1986, dated 02.01.1986 from Mr. Mir Hameed Ali Khan. They are in

possession of the said property.

ii) Originally, the land admeasuring Acs.10.20 guntas in Survey

No.21 belongs to one Mr. Azhar Ali Khan @ Mazhar Ali Khan. After

his death, the said land fell to the share of the petitioners' vendor

pursuant to the partition decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975 passed by learned

KL,J

Munsiff Court, Zaheerabad. The name of the petitioners' vendor was

also recorded in revenue records.

iii) After purchase of the land by the petitioners herein under the

aforesaid registered sale deed, they were under the impression that

mutation is not required and, therefore, they did not proceed with

mutation and went to UAE.

iv) Recently, the petitioners came to know that the subject land is

shown as 'Kariz Khata' in revenue records and the aforesaid survey

number is also missing in online Portal. Immediately, the petitioners

made online application Nos.2300089530 and 2300065372, dated

29.05.2023 and 10.04.2023, respectively seeking rectification of entries.

Despite receiving and acknowledging the said applications, respondent

No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction, the

petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.22104 of 2023. Vide order

dated 16.08.2023, this Court directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider

and dispose of the said applications in accordance with law.

v) In compliance with the said order, vide impugned order dated

22.01.2025, respondent No.2 rejected the aforesaid applications of the

petitioners on the ground that after coming into force the enactment of

A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for

KL,J

short 'Act, 1973'), the subject land was declared as 'ceiling surplus'. In

view of the same, out of Acs.10.20 guntas, an extent of Acs.7.20 guntas

was assigned to third parties, while the balance extent of Acs.3.00 guntas

was recorded as 'Khariz Khata'.

vi) Challenging the said order, the petitioners field the present

writ petition contending that as per the orders in C.C.Nos.1396, 1397 and

1398 of 1975, the subject land was never declared as 'ceiling surplus'.

Contrary to the same, respondent No.4 submitted a report to respondent

No.2 stating that the subject land is 'ceiling surplus'.

vii) In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners

relied upon the decision rendered by the combined High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ande Gangaiah v. M. Krishna Reddy 1.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

Whereas, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed counter denying the

claim of the petitioners contending as follows:

i) As per Khasra, Sessala pahanies and subsequent revenue

records available in the office, the extent of the land in Survey No.21 is

Acs.10.20 guntas and the same is recorded as Patta. After coming into

force of the Act, 1973, the said land was declared as 'ceiling surplus'.

. (2010) 1 ALD 3

KL,J

As per Faisal Patti for the year 1984-85, there is shara stating that

Survey No.21 to an extent of Acs.10.20 guntas was relinquished under

Ceiling, as such, Bandobasth Kami was recommended and accepted by

Nazim-e-Jamabandi in File No.B1/773/1983 of the Tahsildar,

Zaheerabad.

ii) Out of the said total extent, an extent of Acs.3.30 guntas was

assigned to one Mr. Lateef and an extent of Acs.3.30 guntas to one Mr.

Moulana and LavuniIzafa. The balance extent of Acs.3.00 gutnas was

recorded as Khariz-Khata and Nazim-e-Jamabandi agreed to include the

said land as Government Land Statement No.2 as recommended by the

Tahsildar. In view of the same, the request made by the petitioners was

rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

i) Thus, the aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that

according to the petitioners, it is patta land, whereas, according to the

respondents, it is Government Land (Khariz Khata). As discussed

above, according to the petitioners, originally the land admeasuring

Acs.10.20 guntas in Survey No.21 belongs to one Mr. Azhar Ali Khan

@ Mazhar Ali Khan. After his death and pursuant to the partition decree

in O.S. No.72 of 1975 passed by learned Munsiff Court, Zaheerabad, the

KL,J

said land fell to the share of the petitioners' vendor i.e., Mr. Mir Hamid

Ali Khan. The name of the petitioners' vendor was also recorded in

revenue records based on the said decree. It is also the specific

contention of the petitioners that the subject property is not a ceiling

surplus and it is not covered under the orders in C.C. Nos.1396 to 1398

of 1975, dated 14.10.1976.

ii) In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note

that the petitioners herein have filed Photostat copy of attested copy of

order in the said C.Cs and the certified copy of the said sale deed is in

hand written. He has also filed its translated copy. In the said sale deed,

there is specific mention with regard to the immovable property

described in the schedule given therein, admeasuring Acs.30.20 guntas

of agricultural land, situated at Ganeshpur Village and some other

property has fallen to the share of the petitioners' vendor family in

partition which took place between the Vendor and his brother as per the

decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975 and in C.C Nos.1396 to 1398 of 1975 on

the file of Revenue Divisional Officer (Tribunal), Sangareddy. There is

no schedule including extent, survey number, and only boundaries are

mentioned in respect of subject land either in the said sale deed or in the

said judgment and decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975, whereas, in the writ

KL,J

affidavit, the petitioners have also mentioned the said judgment and

decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975.

iii) In the order dated 14.10.1976 in C.C. Nos.1396 to 1398 of

1975 of LRT, Sangareddy Division, Medak District, the judgment and

decree is mentioned as O.S. No.71 of 1975. In the said order, it is also

specifically mentioned that there are three declarants i.e., Maqsood ali

Khan, Zahid Ali Khan and Hameed Ali Khan, are real brothers and they

filed separate declarations each showing the land said to have got in

family settlement out of ancestral property. All the lands are situated in

Ganeshpur Village. The Verifying Officer made a common report of a

total extent of 228.66 acres computed at 4.6006 standard holding. After

allowing one standard holding to declarant No.1, he reported a surplus

area of 3.6006 standard holding. Vendor of the petitioners herein is

declarant No.3. He is also holding surplus area of 3.6006 standard

holding. It is further mentioned that all the three declarants filed

separate objection petitions against the Verification report with similar

contents. It is stated that their father, Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, died on

15.03.1951 leaving six (06) sons and two (02) daughters. He left

agricultural lands in Zaheerabad Taluq of Medak District in Andhra

Pradesh and in Bidar District of Karnataka State. The lands in Andhra

KL,J

Pradesh are in Ganeshpur village, and the land admeasuring Acs.2.00

guntas is mentioned in Survey No.21 of Ganeshpur village.

iv) It is further mentioned that the declarants stated that after the

death of their father, among the brothers, namely Azher Ali Khan used to

manage the property on behalf of other members. On 19.05.1969, they

claimed to have made a family settlement and in terms of the family

settlement, partition deed was executed by all the successors on

20.02.1971. It was registered on 30.04.1971 in Bidar vide document

No.744 of 1971. According to the said settlement, three declarants got

the lands of Ganeshpur village and their brothers got the lands in Bidar

District. Three brothers also divided the lands among themselves in the

same year i.e., 1971 by metes and bounds. They have also obtained a

decree from the District Munsiff Court in O.S. No.71 of 1975.

v) It is relevant to mention that the vendor of the petitioners and

his brothers filed copies of the said registered family settlement deed

dated 30.04.1971 and partition agreement along with judgment in O.S.

No.71 of 1975 before the Land Reforms Tribunal in the aforesaid

proceedings. On consideration of the same, the LRT, Sangareddy

Division held that the Verifying Officer has correctly classified the lands

in his report. The joint holding of three declarants is also specifically

KL,J

mentioned. Acs.2.00 guntas of land in Survey No.21 is specifically

mentioned. Declarant No.3, vendor of the petitioners herein i.e., Mr.

Hameed Ali Khan, as an individual, he is entitled to one-standard

holding. The land held by declarant No.3 is less than one standard

holding. Thus, the Tribunal determined that the vendor of the petitioners

did not hold the land in excess of the ceiling on the notified date.

vi) Therefore, there is variation with regard to the suit number.

According to the petitioners, it is O.S. No.72 of 1975, whereas as per the

order dated 14.10.1976 of the LRT, Sangareddy Division in C.C.

Nos.1396 to 1398 of 1975, it is mentioned as O.S. No.71 of 1975. The

petitioners did not file copy of the said judgment and decree. They have

not filed copy of the aforesaid registered family settlement deed bearing

No.744 of 1971, dated 30.04.1971 and also link documents of the

petitioners.

vii) The petitioners are contending that the document filed by

them is Sethwar. It contains file No.A10/1547/2023 and in the translated

copy, it is mentioned as Classer Register, village name is also mentioned

as Ganeshpur, Mandal as Nyalkal.

viii) It is relevant to note that Kharij Khata means deletion of

account. The land of a private pattadar will be declared

KL,J

as Kharij Khata for various reasons. It may be non-payment of land

revenue or State dues or it also may be because the land is abandoned or

not in cultivation of any person. Sethwar (also known as "A" Register),

is the basic land record which contains details of survey numbers of the

revenue village, total area, ownership, nature of land (Inam,

Government/Poramboke), type of soil, source of irrigation etc.. The

Mandals were formed in the year 1985. The Classer Register/Sethwar is

of the year 2023. Therefore, in the Sethwar, the name of the Mandal

cannot be mentioned.

ix) Even in the said document, in respect of the land in Survey

No.21, admeasuring Acs.10.20 guntas is mentioned as 'Sarkari', name

of Khatadar as Mazar Ali son of Mohammed Ali. There is also

proceedings number as 'C1/2172/84'.

x) Even in the pahani filed by the petitioners for the year 2017 of

Ganeshpur Village, the land in Survey No.21 is mentioned as 'Khariz

Khata'. In Dharani Portal also, the said land is mentioned as

'Government Land'. The petitioners filed Form - 1 (Abstract) of

Ganeshpur Village. There is no survey number. Even in the

encumbrance certificate filed by the petitioners, though the document

number is mentioned as 1 of 1986 and the names of the petitioners herein

KL,J

as claimants, but, it is not known as to why the name of Syndicate Bank

is also mentioned as claimant apart from the names of the petitioners as

claimants. Further, as per the said encumbrance certificate, the names of

executants are two i.e., Mohammad Binsaleha and Hammed Ali Khan

Meer, whereas in the sale deed bearing document No.1 of 1986, only the

name of Mir Hamid Ali Khan is mentioned as the executants. There is

no explanation from the petitioners with regard to the above

discrepancies.

xi) As discussed above, the petitioners herein are claiming right

over the subject property basing on registered sale deed bearing

document No.1 of 1986 dated 02.01.1986. Section - 4 of the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (ROR Act, 1971) deals

with 'acquisition of rights to be intimated, and it says that any person

acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition,

Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as, owner,

pattadar of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a

land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of

such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such

acquisition. The Village Revenue Officer on noting the acquisition of

rights in his jurisdiction shall intimate the Tahsildar within one (1) day

KL,J

as prescribed. The Tahsildar shall give or send a written

acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making

it. Section - 5 of the ROR Act, 1971 deals with 'amendment and

updating of record of rights' and the procedure to do so.

xii) Thus, in Section - 4 of the ROR Act, 1971, the word used is

"shall". As on the date of purchase of the subject lands by the petitioners

i.e., 02.01.1986, ROR Act, 1971 was in force. Even then , the petitioners

herein did not take any steps either for recording the said transaction in

revenue records, failed to obtain mutation proceedings in their favour

and also pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

xiii) ROR Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020) came into effect from

29.10.2020. Section - 5 of the ROR Act, 2020 deals with 'registration

and effecting change in record of rights when right over the land

acquired by way of sale, gift, mortgage or exchange'. As per the said

provision, any person acquires land have to effect change in revenue

records in terms of Section - 5 of the ROR Act, 2020.

xiv) Though the petitioners herein are contending that they have

purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed bearing

document No.1 of 1986, dated 02.01.1986, they have submitted online

applications bearing Nos.2300065372 and 2300089530, dated

KL,J

10.04.2023 and 29.05.2023, respectively i.e., after elapse of thirty seven

(37) years. There is no explanation, much less plausible explanation

from the petitioners for the said abnormal delay in filing the aforesaid

online applications with District Collector seeking mutation of their

names and issuance of e-pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

xv) The only explanation offered by the petitioners is that after

purchase of the subject property, they went Abroad i.e., UAE. The said

explanation is unsatisfactory.

xvi) As discussed above, except filing of copy of the aforesaid

registered sale deed bearing document No.1 of 1986, dated 02.01.1986,

that too hand-written and typed copy, the petitioners have not filed any

other document to show that either their vendor or they are the owners

and possessors of the subject property. As stated above, there is

abnormal delay of 37 years on the part of the petitioners in approaching

the District Collector seeking mutation of their names in revenue records

and issuance of pattadar passbooks. The petitioners failed to explain the

said delay.

xvii) It is the specific contention of the respondents herein that the

total extent of the land in Survey No.21 is Acs.10.20 guntas and in

revenue records i.e., Khasra, Sessala and subsequent revenue records, the

KL,J

same is mentioned as 'patta'. After Ceiling Act came into force, the said

land was declared as 'ceiling surplus'. As per Faisal Patti for the year

1984-85, it is mentioned as 'Shara' stating that Survey No.21 to an

extent of Acs.10.20 guntas was relinquished under Ceiling and as such,

Bandobasth Kami was recommended and accepted by Nazim-e-

Jamabandi in Tahsildar, Zaheerabad in File No.B/1773/83. As per the

Faisal Patti for the year 1984-85, out of total extent of ceiling surplus

land of Acs.10.20 guntas, an extent of Acs.3.30 guntas was assigned in

favour of Mr. Lateef and an extent of Acs.3.30 guntas was assigned in

favour of Mr. Moulana and Lavunilzafa and balance extent of Acs.3.00

guntas was recorded as Khariz Khata. In Survey No.21/1, land

admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas of land was recorded as 'Khariz-Khata',

the Nizam-e-Jamabandi, agreed to include the said land in Government

land statement No.2 as recommended by the Tahsildar. Thus, the subject

land is Khariz Khata (Government land), and any transactions taken

place in respect of the subject property is treated as null and void.

xviii) Therefore, in compliance with the order dated 16.08.2023

in W.P. No.22104 of 2023, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order

dated 22.01.2025. The said order is on consideration of the entire

record. It is a reasoned order and well founded. There is no error in it.

KL,J

xix) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the

principle laid down in Ande Gangaiah1. In the said case, the appellants

therein sought to set up their claims based on an agreement and the said

document was not filed before the Court at any stage. The respondents

in the said case set up their claim basing on the registered sale deed. On

consideration of the said facts, the Division Bench held that the

appellants therein could not in any way disgorge their claim in any

manner. Thus, considering prima facie title vesting with the respondents

therein, the Division Bench held that absolutely there is no claim nor

right much less enforceable in favour of the appellants so as to maintain

any of the proceedings or assail the correctness of the claim as sought to

be enforceable by the writ petitioners. Thus, the facts of the said case

are altogether different to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the

principle laid down in the said judgment is inapplicable to the case of the

petitioners herein.

xx) As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, though the

petitioners are claiming right over the subject property basing on the

registered sale deed bearing document No.1 of 1986, dated 02.01.1986,

they were silent for about 37 years. They failed to get their names

mutated in revenue records and they did not obtain passbooks and title

deeds. They have not filed any document including the aforesaid

KL,J

partition agreement and judgment and decree in partition suit etc. They

have not filed any document to show that they are in possession of the

subject property. Even there is discrepancy with regard to extent, survey

number, partition suit number etc. They have to establish/crystallize

their right over the subject property and then, they have to approach the

revenue authorities. Instead of doing so, they were silent for about 37

years. Even the photographs filed by the petitioners would reveal that it

is open land.

6. CONCLUSION:

i) As stated above, on consideration of the said aspects only,

respondent No.2 has passed impugned order. There is no error in it. The

petitioners failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned

order. Thus, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable

to be dismissed.