M.A. Rahman v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropflate writ declaring the Endorsement No.El113Ol2O20, d1.1711212020 issued by the respondent No.4 is contrary to Memo No.R2/LPO/F31480512003, dt.03/07i2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and Memo No.49169/Assn.llU2l2012, dl-2011'112012 issued by the respondent No.1 , as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to reconsider petitioner's case as per Memo No.R2/LPO/F3 l4BO5t2OO3, dt.O3tl7l2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and Memo No.49169/Assn.lll/2/2012, dt.2\l11t2012 issued by the respondent No 1 for allotment of alternative site for residential purposes lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site as per the Memo No.R2/LPO/F31480512003, d1.0310712013 issued by the respondent No.3 and Memo No.49169/Assn.lll/2/20 12, dt.zll11l2012 issued by the respondent No.1 without reference to Endorserr:nt No.E/1 13012020 dt.1711212020 pending disposal of writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDD" Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.175 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the Endorsement No.E/l13Ol2O2O, dated 17.12.2O2O issued by respondent No.4 is contrary to Memo No.R2lLPO/F314805/2003, dated 03.07'2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and Memo No.49169/AssnJll/212012, dated 20.11.2012 issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the case as per Memo No- R2/LPOlF3l4805/2OO3, dated 03.07.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 ald Memo No.49169/Assn.IlI/2l2012' dated 20.11.2OI2 issued by the respondent No. 1 for allotment of alternative site for residential purposes. It is also prayed to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site as per Memo No. R2ILPOlF3l48O5/2003, dated O3.O7.2013 respondent No.3 and Memo issr.red by ) 1 No.49169/ Assn.Ill/212012, dated 20.Il.2Ol2 issued by the lt_ Page 2 of9 respondent Iio. i , without reference to trndorsement No.tr/ 1l3O l2O2O, dated 17 .12.2O2O

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submils as follorvs: i) The petitioner is in continuous posso ,sion of land admeasuring 51 sq. yds in Sy. No. 212, correlat rd to T.S. No. 35, Block H, Ward No. 1O9, situated within tl e Abdul Haq Compound, near Boats Club, Ranigunj, [i :cunderabad While so, the 4th respondent attempted to <1 spossess the petitioner and others from the subject land. A51 rieved by the said action, the petitioner filed Writ Petitior No.176O4 of 1995 seeking a direction to the Collector to er mt pattas to them upon payment of a reasonable price for th : land This Hon'ble Court, by order datec 14.08.1995, directed the respondents, including the Collec1 tr, to restore possession to the petitioner, to consider the r:presentation dated 25.01.i995, and to proceed in accordan< e with law, if i I t I I ! , ! I '1. Page 3 of9 they chose not to grant patta and intended to resume the 1and. iii) Aggrieved by the said order, the State filed Writ Appeal No.1137 of 1995, which was disposed of by the Hon'lcle Division Bench of this Court on 10.10.1995 with a direction to the Collector to consider assignment/ settiement of the Iand in favour of the petitioners. The Court further directed the authorities to wait for a period of 30 days before taking any coercive action, and to provide an opportunity for the writ petitioners/respondents to either vacate voluntarily or, alternatively, pay the compensation amount and obtain the assignment. Pursuant to this, the petitioner and others paid individual challans, and the petitioner herein paid a surn of Rs.1,53,000/- vide Challan No. 041554. Consequently, their possession was regularized vide proceedings No. 1al5358/91 dated 20.LL.1995 iv) After the regularization of land, when the petitioner ald others were raising structures, the A.P. Wald Board issued notices directing them to stop construction. It was informed that this Hon'ble Court, by interim orders in WPMP ) Page 4 t.,f 9 Nos. 35444/95 and '3455a195 in W.P. No. 28( 06/95 dated

15.12.1995, had issued an injunction rei raining any change to the nature of the land and also s t spended the Collector's proceedings dated 20. 1 1. 1995. v) W.P. No. 25826 of 1995 was I1led by tlL grandson of the late Nawab Hazatath Abdul, whose grave\ i rd is located on the subject land, seeking a declaration that I y. No. 212 is not Government Poramboke land. Additionally, one Sri Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan, claiming to be the dt [y appointed Muthawalli of the Wakf, filed W.P. Nos. 20546 md 28435 of 1995 challenging the Collector's proceedings and seeking directions not to grant pattas. He, along vvit r others, also f-ll'ed LGC No.274 /1995 before the Special Court vi) The Special Court, vide judgment datec 16.03.2006, dismissed the LGC while holding that the scherl rled property is Wakf property. It observed that the app i :ants are at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in a conL retent forum, as this Court has no jurisdiction to adjuc i :ate matters beyond the scope of larrd grabbing under tl e A.P. Larld Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1 Page 5 of9 vii) In view of the said findings in LGC No.214 of 1995, all connected writ petitions were disposed of, with the observation that the land admeasuring 3,600 sq. yds in Sy. No. 2I2 of Bakaram Village is Wakf property. viii) Aggrieved by the said order, one Sri E. Neeleshwar and nine others f,rled W.P. No. 17905 of 1996 against the Wakf Board, Collector, MRO and others, which was also disposed of in light of the f,rndings in the LGC. A revision petition was also disposed of on 1 I .06.2007 . ix) Thereafter, the respondents in LGC No.2l4 of 1995, whose lald was previously regularized by the Collector, requested either allotment of alternative lald or refund of the amounts paid. The District Collector, Hyderabad, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, A.p. State Wakf Board, cancelled the regularization proceedings vide proceedings No. LPO2lF3 /48OSl2OO3, dated O3.04.2O10. x) Subsequently, the Principal Secretary to Government, through G.O.Ms. No. 1736 dated 2l.O9.2OLL, Page 6 of9 ordered the refund of the amount paid by the 1 etitioner arld others xi) The petitioner thereafter submitted r I )resentations dated 16.11.2013, 07.12.2013, 31.10.20 l5 02.ll.2Ol7, ll.12.2Ol7,2l.O5.2OlB,24.08.2O2O and 23.' .2020 to the 2nd respondent, seeking allotment of a resirl ntial plot in accordalce with Memo dated 20.11.2072. Hou ever, instead of allotting alternative 1and, the 4th respondr: tt issued the impugned proceedings dated 1 7 . 12.2O2O .

4. On the other hand, the learned Assista-ri Government Pleader for Revenue, reiterating the averments made in the counter afhdavit, submits that the subject lan J is not vested with the Government ald is declared to be We I f property by virtue of the orders passed in LGC No.214 r,l 1995, dated

16.03.2006. Therefore, the petitioner's reques- for allotment of an alternative site in the same area does n rt arise. This fact has also been admitted by the petitioner a: 1 others. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a tenar t of the Wakf Board and is paying regular rent. However', the learned Page 7 of I Assistant Government Pleader states that appropriate orders rvi1l be passed on the petitioner's representations.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ald the iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, ald after perusing the material available on record, this Court is I of the considered opinion that, having received an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- from the father of the petitioner in the year 1995, the respondents ought to have either refunded the said amount or taken appropriate action in accordance with law.

6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 16.11.2013, 07.t2.20r3, 3i.10.2016, 02.t1.2017, tt.L2.2017, 2l.O5.2OIB, 24.O8.2O20 and 23.11.2O2O and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordarce with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, Page 8 of9 There sha,l1 be no order as to costs. .\ a sequel, miscellaneous pelitions, if arly, pending, sha,ll s1r nd closed. SD/-8. AI; ;ISTANT REKHA RANI *-=:19l,** ..-..? //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, ll, derabad. 2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally ll rad, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad District Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad lvlandal, Musheerabad. ll derabad 5 One CC to SRI. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Advocate )pUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,High Court for the S : .e of Tetangana 7 Two CD Copies KKS.- BS Hr i I ) t t HIGH COURT DATED:1110812025 ORDER WP.No.175 of 2021 I ( a) t 3 -8 2026 c) * /) SP^TG * DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Io "rg(d Y-L-- (?tftG