Disposed

Ali Bin Saleh, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2012WP/10543/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Government of A.P. to dispose of a pending revision petition concerning property mutation and to restrain alienation of lands until disposal. The Court held that expressing an opinion on merits was unnecessary as the revision was pending.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision petition within three months and restrain alienation of the subject lands.

Ali Bin Saleh, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10543 OF 2009

¶2

DATED: 21.02.2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Ali Bin Saleh … Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

1. Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.10543 OF 2009

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The petitioner claims to be the successor of one Shamsheer Nawaz Jung, who owned and possessed vast properties in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. In the Munthakab issued in File No.3810, dated 27 Farwadi 1341 Fasli, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather and others were shown as successors to the properties which included the properties situated in Hyderabad Taluk west, now in Serilingampally, Rajendranagar Mandal limits. After the death of his grandfather and father, the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

¶10

It is stated that one Lathif Unnisa Begum belonging to a different branch of the family filed an appeal in File No.38/1954 before the Board of Revenue assailing the orders passed in the succession processing. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 11.02.1955 and the same was confirmed on revision. Even W.P.No.98 of 1956 filed by the said Lathif Unnisa Begum was dismissed by this Court by order dated 3.3.1960.

¶11

Thereafter, on 31.07.1995 the petitioner filed an application before the District Collector, Rangareddy District for mutating his name and the names of the other sharers as pattadars in respect of Maktha Amzadabad @ Hajaguda by implementing the Mumthakab. The said

¶12

request of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings of the Joint Collector, Rangareddy, dated 30.07.2001. Pending the said proceedings before the Joint Collector, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.8900 of 1995 and W.P.No.21477 of 2000 assailing the inaction on the part of the authorities to consider the request for mutation. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with directions to the District Collector to dispose of the petitioner’s representation and to maintain status quo as to possession pending finalisation of the proceedings.

¶13

Against the order, dated 30.07.2001, whereunder the petitioner’s request for mutation was rejected by the Joint Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad. Pending the said appeal, as the respondents were taking steps to assign the lands which are the subject-matter of the appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15844 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 7.8.2003 directing that status quo as to the possession shall be maintained. In spite of the said order, since a notification was published to hold public auction by way of sale of 4,300 sq. yards in Sy.No.40 of Hajaguda village, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.19484 of 2003 and by virtue of the interim order dated 16.09.2003 the auction was stayed.

¶14

Thereafter, by order dated 28.04.2004 the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad disposed of the petitioner’s appeal and remanded the matter back to the Joint Collector for consideration afresh taking into account the pre-survey and settlement records. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector, by order dated 7.10.2006 had again rejected the petitioner’s claim for mutation. Challenging the said order, dated 7.10.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad and some others preferred a separate appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner of Appeals by order dated 18.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 1^st

¶15

respondent – Government of A.P., on 22.01.2009 along with an application for interim relief. Since the 1^st respondent failed to consider the revision petition or even the miscellaneous petition and in the meanwhile there was likelihood of allotting the lands in question to third parties by way of assignment or on payment of market value, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to dispose of the Revision petition pending on its file.

¶16

This Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 28.05.2009 in WPMP.No.13532 of 2009 directed the respondents not to alienate / assign the lands which are the subject-matter of the revision petition in favour of third parties during the pendency of the revision petition before the 1^st respondent.

¶17

Despite notice, no counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents.

¶18

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition is still pending before the 1^st respondent and the said fact has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶19

Since the statutory revision petition is pending before the 1^st respondent, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion about the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the Revision petition preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 18.11.2008 in Appeal No.P5/86/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the respondent shall not alienate / assign the lands which are the subject-matter of the revision petition in favour of any third parties. No costs.

¶20

______________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶21

Dt. 21.02.2012 gbs

Ali Bin Saleh, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Bin Saleh, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bommaka Narayana Reddy Vs The District Collector

Cheruku Ananda Reddy Vs Mr. Viniod K. Agarwal

Vangala Jyothsna Vs Smt Nagaveni W/o Petitioner not known

Ravuru Venkata Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

Farooq Rabbani Siddiqui Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Kedala Janardhan Vs State of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue