Dismissed

Syed Afzal, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC25 Jul 2014WP/9181/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue officer's proceedings rejecting a relinquishment of self-acquired property. The court dismissed the petition, finding the alleged date discrepancy was a typographical error in the typed order versus the signed draft, noting significant laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

Syed Afzal, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.9181 of 2011

BETWEEN

Syed Afzal.

... PETITIONER

AND

The District Collector, Karimnagar District and two others.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BRAHMADANDI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks restoration of land,

¶15

in question, in his favour by declaring the relinquishment (Rajinama) of the said land executed by his father on 26.04.1989 as bad in law and to declare the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer bearing No.B/1323/89 dated

¶16

17.04.1989 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶17

2. Evidently, the writ petition itself is filed on 06.04.2011 after lapse of more than 21 years. Petitioner himself is aged 37 years on the date of writ petition, as such, at this distance of time, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the relinquishment by his father.

¶18

3. The subject matter of this writ petition is an extent of Ac.6.06 guntas in Sy.No.561 of Husnabad village, Karimnagar District,

¶19

which was stated to be self-acquired property of the grandfather of the petitioner to which petitioner’s father succeeded to an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas and the remaining extent was distributed in favour of his paternal uncles. It is stated that the petitioner’s father was also owner of an adjacent land and thus, in both Sy.Nos.561 and 562, he was holding total extent of Ac.7.28 guntas. Petitioner states that his father is alleged to have executed a Rajinama (relinquishment deed) dated 26.04.1989 in favour of the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, for handing over the said land to Padmashali Handloom Workers for their residential houses. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the proceedings of the then Mandal Revenue Officer dated 17.04.1989, which is impugned in this writ petition, on the ground that the subject mentioned in the said proceedings refers to “Rajinama submitted by Sri Syed Yakub, son of Syed Afzal, residing at Husbabad dated 26.04.1989”.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the impugned proceedings to contend that when the Rajinama of Syed Yakub itself is dated 26.04.1989, the impugned proceedings could not have been issued on 17.04.1989, which is even prior to the Rajinama application of Syed Yakub.

¶21

5. Since that is the principal ground urged in support of the writ petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had required the learned Government

¶22

Pleader to produce the concerned file relating to the impugned proceedings.

¶23

6. The said file together with the impugned proceedings was produced by the learned Government Pleader for perusal of the Court and the same was also examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the manuscript of the draft order that it is signed on 27.04.1989 and the draft also contains the corrections made and thereafter, based on the said draft, a typed order was prepared, as office copy. However, in the said typed order the date of the proceedings is written as 17.04.1989 whereas in the original draft order it is written as 27.04.1989. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the typed copy contains a mistake with regard to the date, as the original file shows that the said proceedings was drawn and signed on 27.04.1989.

¶24

7. The examination of the said original records, therefore, clearly rebuts the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of a typographical mistake in the typed copy of the said order with regard to the date as a ground. Moreover, in the original record, the Rajinama signed by Syed Yakub on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-, which was purchased on 26.04.1989, also contains the signatures of the more than 9 witnesses including the rubber stamp and signature of the President, Mandal Praja Parishad. I am, therefore, satisfied that no such anomaly, as contended, exists. Moreover, the writ petition is filed after more than 21 years without any explanation whatsoever for the huge delay and laches. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner is only trying to take advantage of a typographical mistake in the order impugned. Hence, there are no merits to entertain the writ petition.

¶25

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

July 25, 2014 DSK

Syed Afzal, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Afzal, v. The District Collector

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

Pendor Jaiwantha, D/o. Vasantha Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth Vs Government of Telangana

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, Vs The State of a.P.represented by

Mandala Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana, Represented by Prl.Secretary

Pathala Satya Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission

Kandavalli Sudhakar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh