Dismissed

P Balamani v. Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig (Died)

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025CRP/839/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two civil revision petitions under Article 227 challenged Joint Collector orders concerning Occupancy Rights Certificates in Nadergul village, Ranga Reddy District. Following subsequent remand proceedings and an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 23.03.2023 in the petitioners' favour, the High Court dismissed both revisions as infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

P Balamani Vs Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO:837 AND 839 0F 2014}

¶7

CIVIL REVIS ION^{PETITIO NNO:837 OF 2014}

¶8

Petition filed under Article^{227 ot lhe constitutionof lndia aggrieved by the} order dated 22-01-2014^{in File No- F111721 0f 2010 0n the file of the court of the} Joint collector-l Ranga^{Reddy District, preferredby the order dated18-06-2005} in File No. Jt1717t2oo2^{0n the file of the Revenue Divisionalofficer,} Saroornagar, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jakkidi Ram Reddy S/o.^{Late Narayan Reddy,} -aged^{abo-ut58 years' Occ:} Agiicuiture, R/o. Na'dergul^{Village,Saroornaga,Mandal, R R District'}

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Nawab Mir Ahmed^Ali Khan @^{Mohd.Ali Baig (Diedper L rs)}

¶14

Mubarakunnisa Begum Wo.^{Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about80 years'} Occ Business

¶15

3 Mir Sardar Ali^Khan S/o.^{Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Agedabout62 years' Occ} Business.

¶16

4 Mir Hamid Ali Khan S/o.^{Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan,Agedabout56 years' Occ} Business.

¶17

5 Ayesha Rizwana D/o.^{Late Mir AhmedAli Khan, Agedabout 61 years, Occ} Household.

¶18

6 Mrs Butoolunnisa D/o. Late^{Mir AhmedAli Khan, Occ HouseholdH No 9-4-} 7711/B, Yousuf Takeri^{Colony,Toli Chowki, Hyderabad'}

¶19

7 Aneesunnisa D/o. Late^{Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Agedabout48 years,Occ} Household.

¶20

Mukaramunnisa^{D/o.Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan,Aged about46 years, Occ} Household,

¶21

-ti

¶22

Basheerunisa D/o Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 44 years, Occ Household

¶23

l0.Tahseenunnisa D/o Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 42 years, Occ Household All are residents of H.No 9-4-771118, Yousuf Takeri Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad

¶24

Revenue Divislonal Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddv District

¶25

Joint Co lec.tor, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO: 1152OF 20141

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff idavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the lmpugned order dt. 18-6-2005 passed in case No Jl1717lO2 on the file of the Special Grade Deputy/Collectcr/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East, pending disposal of the above Revision by dispensing with tlre notice to respondents.

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 839 OF 2014

¶30

Petition filed under Article 227 of Ihe Constitution of ndia aggrieved by the order dated 22-01-2014 in File No. F111722 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Joint Collector I Ranga Reddy District, preferred by the order dated 18-06-2005 in File No Jl1723l2OO2 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Redd y District.

¶31

Between:

¶32

P. Balamarri, W/o Late Anji Reddy, occ Housewife, R/o Nadergul Vitlage, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶33

P. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy, occ Agrl 1ro Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶34

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶35

AND

¶36

1 Nawab lrilir,\hmed Ali Khan @ Mohd. Ali Baig (Died per t-.rs)

¶37

2 Mubarakunnisa Begum W/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, l\ged about 80 years, Occ Business

¶38

3 Mir lr,4ohamrred Ali Khan, S/o Late Late Mir Ahmed Al Khan, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business

¶39

Mir Sardar Ali Khan S/o. Late [/ir Ahmed^Ati Khan,^{Aged about 58 years,Occ} Business.

¶40

Mir Hamid Ali Khan S/o. Late^{Mir AhmedAli Khan, Aged about 56 years, Occ} Business.

¶41

Ayesha Rizwana D/o. Late^lvlir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged^{about6'1 years, Occ} Household,

¶42

Mrs Butoolunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed^{Ali Khan,Aged about59 years, Occ} Household H.No. 9-4-7711/8, Yousuf Takeri^Colony, Toli^{Chowki, Hyderabad.}

¶43

L Aneesunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged^{about 48 years,Occ} Household.

¶44

Mukaramunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed^{Ali Khan, Aged about46 years, Occ:} Household,

¶45

lo.Basheerunisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan,^{Aged about 44 years,Occ} Household.

¶46

'l 1 . Tahseenunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 42 years, Occ Household

¶47

All are residents of H.No.^{9-4-771118,Yousuf Takeri Colony, Toli Chowki,} Hyderabad.

¶48

Revenue Divisronal Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶49

Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014 c RPMP. NO: 1154OF 2014

¶52

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesslated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to} suspend the operation of the impugned order^{dt.18-06-2005 passedin Case} No.Jt 1723102 (172112005, 171612002) on the^{file of the Special GradeDeputy/} Collector/ Revenue Divisional^{Officer,Rangareddy District East, pending} disposal of the above revision by dispensing^{with the notice to respondents.}

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri^R. Rakesh Reddy^{representi.ng} Sri Resu Mahender ReddY

¶54

Gounsel for the Respondents¹ to 10: Smt.^{Y. Sonanjali representing} Sri N. Naveen Kumar

¶55

The Court made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶56

¶57

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N, TUKARAMJI

¶58

C.R.P.Nos.837 and 839of 2074

¶59

COMMON ORD ER:

¶60

The Civil Revision Petition No.B37 of 2014 has; been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the loint Collector-t, RanEa Reddy District in Fite No.FtitT2t of 2010 i.e. 12trr respondcnt herein against case No.J/77t7/2002 dated 18.06.2005 ln the file of 11tr' respondent/the Itevenue Divisional Officer, Saroor \agar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶61

The Civil levision Petition No.B39 of 2Ot4 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District in File No.Fl/1722 of 2010 i.e. 121 ' responcent herein against case No)/7723/2002 dated 18.06 2ir0l; cn the file of 11th respon(jent/the Revenue Drvisional Cif ce,r, Sarocr Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distr ct.

¶62

Hearc Sr R. Rakesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Resu Mahen ler. Redcly, learned counsel fcr - e, petitioners and Smt. Y.Sonanja r. learned counsel representing Sri . Naveen Kumar, learned counsei ior the respondent Nos.1 to 10.

¶63

¶64

*ft

¶65

Learned counsel for the revision^petitioners would submit that the revision petitioner in CRP No.B37 of 2Ol4 was Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) holder of the disputed property. Subsequently^part of the^property was sold to the revision^petitioners in CRP.No.B39 of 2014. The respondents in revision^{petitions;-before} the Revenue Divisional Officer, had contested the ORC and^passing of rights by the revision^petitioner in CRP No.B37 of 2074 and the same was disposed of against the revision^petitioner. The revision^petitioners challenged that order and the orders^passed by the Joint Collector are impugned in these revisions

¶66

Learned counsel would further submit that in the impugned order the loint Collector disposed of the appeal by observing that a related writ petition is pending before this Court and for that reason the Tribunal cannot passed the conclusive. However, in the later course, the W.P.No.12322 of 2012 was dismissed by leaving it open to the revision^petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedies. Basing on those orders, the revision^petitioners approached the ioint Collector, whereupon by setting aside the earlier order remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the RDO on 23.03.2023 vide case -_Io.C/1215/2022^{passed an order in favour of the revision petitioners.}

¶67

¶68

Having regard to the above narrated developrnents and as the cause does not survive for adjudication, the Civil tlevision petitions are dismissed a,, infructuous. No costs

¶69

Asa seqtrel, 'niscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

¶70

stand closed

¶71

SD/. A.V.S. RASAD DEPUTY E ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶72

To, 1. The Joint Collector-l Ranga Reddy District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Rr:ddy District

¶73

One CC to lVl/s Resu Law Office, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]

¶74

Two CD Copies

VH/DL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 05102t2025

COMMON ORDER CRP.No.837 of 2014 AND CRP.No.839 of 2014

¶80

)R 1HE Sr,l rS.
<br>c ( \
tr7 ,,il ru6
t
() t
:!-
"t-i ir:a

¶81

DlSMISSING BOTH GRP'S AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶82

+^{.o6"</sup> f\trw}

P Balamani v. Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P Balamani v. Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Seetarama Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs K Narapa Reddy, Secunderabad

The Principal Accountant General (Audit) Vs The Accountants General Office Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Raghunandan Chary Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

B.Laxmipathi Vs M.Murali

Smt. Jilla. @ Kavali Jagadamba Vs The Joint Collector(s)

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs N Dhan Raj Goud