Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1006 (TS)

Mir Mohammed Ali Khan v. State of Telangana

2025-09-10

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. 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 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 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’. 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 , (2010) 1 ALD 3 . 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’. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 mentioned. 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 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 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’. 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 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 as prescribed. The Tahsildar shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it. The Village Revenue Officer on noting the acquisition of rights in his jurisdiction shall intimate the Tahsildar within one (1) day 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 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. 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 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. xix) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down in Ande Gangaiah. The said order is on consideration of the entire record. It is a reasoned order and well founded. There is no error in it. xix) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down in Ande Gangaiah. 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 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. 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. ii) The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.