The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2011212022 and consequently dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. 6 lA NO: 2 Ofr2!i,i! Between: lv4/s [,rr.sti,l.) Estates proiects Limited, a public lim.ted_ rompany registered unde tl ( r.mpanies Act,'i956, havl;g'iG i"g,i[ri;i ,in,cl at prestige Fatcon lower. ll: 19. Brunton road, Asho[nagrr: Eiinglo:" F,epresented bv its chairr,rrr ,r'rd Manaoino Direitor tr.,lr rrriilazai,t] ,j"o ri6 it"r, sl" i"i" Razar:k S;: tar ...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ REIJPONDENT IJo.1O 1 9Tt l)hr ir-i Sarncher,.D/o. Raja prem Gopal Saircher. ag,:d about 53 years. Nii s- ri_Liriv-'rjolu,v], i#" r,#"jili;; y"?,,5,?:,,.[o s;do[ord 2. Samrur, S ,r r:her Nag. S/o. Shalini Saincher. Agerj ab tu. 1.5 years, RIo. plot No g R :,-,r No o. Trimurthy Cofon,, fasi""Htare r[rti7. S;;;;;;idr;: AND 500026 . .RESPONDENTS/ ,i:iJff:1:s at a- z- sastciq R;;i Ciirr ??'+I+P"T,'A'J 3. Saye-eJ: i\Lr'od, W/o Lgle^{b^o9! Ahmed Bin [\,4ahfooz, ageJ about 67 vears. residins ar lt No B_ 2_323t324 noC[ cr,r, io]j.Ni; ;; eln uir"iilt.], ,"",-, Hyderirc a,l. l elanqana. 4. Saleh.\t c<,,lA,aahf"ooz, gl"^L^+gAbood Ahmed Bin t\,4at-fo,rz. aged 45 vears. son or .r silino ar B_ 2_323t324 nocr<b"lir, noiJ'irto z aarya#r{frJ] ,"" ", Hyderrrb r, J Te-lanoana. 5. A,4ohanre lr\rcod Mahfoo_2, So,.,' of Late Abood Ahnred Etin Nlahfooz. aoed -R;;;;'Ni;"'i"B;i37,'lirr. 6 fl?::i;f- ff \h.ocxt A,4ahioo4, Slo^L{g^A-bood Ahmed Bir- t\,4ahfoo.,r, aqed about 37 .199_?t liiir J' [?i:';. 3,]l l' i 3 3LX,# 7. Saud A h, ,r ,l l,1aht6oz. Sio. Late Abo_od Ahmed Bin Vah.oc:z aged 34 years, residrn,l i,l tt 2- 323t324 Rock Clifl. noa,i f.f o. i"tir 1lar.. H,ll; Hyderabad, Telang tr. a 8 Yll: Lb xrr tv4ahfooz, .O/9,lalelUood Ahmed Bin Mal-fo<:2, aged about 42 -- years. re: i, jrr,tat B_ 2_323t324. Rock Ctiff. R;;d N;, z ear.lj,ira,iiirsl""'. Hydera tz d -1:lanoana 9 i^ulgl, A ,r,:J N4aEfooz. Dto. Abood Ahmed Bi,r IVlahFoc z. aged about 38 years re:irr r rr at B_ 2_ 3231324Rock Cliff, HorJf.fo I eanli:ai,ill;, -""". " HYderalad -i-'lanoana 10 fpha Abc,t,rJ l/ahiooz, O19,latlnnood Ahmed Bin l\Iahrooz aqed about 31 years. r:s r,irr at B_ 2_ 323t324 Rock Cliff, norO flo ig rnrr- ,"ilitirl""". " , HyderaltaC l?:lanoana . AI Anocd lV a I ooz] D/o. Late4bood Ahmed Bin A,4ahfooz, ag{ld about 29 Rock clirr' RoJo r'ri" z s'in-i5 inirril'-" fri'"';r1;ir' ?? ,Z'nZ'"?2"''"a 8- 2- 323t 324. noCr crrn, Hoao r.r" z ir% "i,?, -Late 1 'l

12.Khaja IVoirir rrrnedllla Khan, S/o Late Khaja Asadulla Kh.ln. t,,ged about 79 , . u:i!! i l? i, I i :'",i,:;; r,,,1,,i* : mm,LxIl tai:t ..,,," ;;", :." , , Busines; F,c 12. Shantinagar, HvderJb;; r+ rvrrs uu'r€ rif i'war. D/o Khaja Mohammedura Khan s/o r_ate Khaja Asadura Khan, Aqed acout 7e y"ars,'occ]slrJi""1t filli'i?, shantinaqar, Hyderabad " *"" '!v\ 7

15. Mr. Raja Sanjay Saincher, S/o. Raja Ratan Gopal Saincher, Aged about 57 Years, R/o. Plot No 9, Road No. 9, Trimurthy Colony, Eas Marredpally, Secunderabad- 500026. '16. [\ilr. Dhananjay Sainchar, S/o. Raja Ratan Gopal Saincher, Aged about 56years, R/o Plot No 9, Road No9,Trimurthy Colony, East Marredpally, Secunderabad- 500026.

17. Mr. Vinay Sainchar, S/o. Raja Ratan Gopal Saincher, aged about 53 Years, Rl/o. Plot No 9, Road No 9,Trimurthy Colony, East Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500026. '18.The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally Hyderabad.

19.The Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad, State of Telangana 20.The Joint Sub Registrar, Office of District Registrar, Redhills, Hyderabad. 21.The District Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad 22-The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Urban land ceilins' secretariat' Hvderabad IEBEBilBENIBi RES. 11 TO 15 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 vacate the stay granted dl 2011212022 in lA No.1/in WP No.45203 of 2022 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI S.NAGESH REDDY, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l TO 9: SRI WASIM AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRl. DAMMULAPATI SRINIVAS SC REP SRI. ROHITH POGULA, ADV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.17 TO 21 : AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.22 TO 40: SRI ABDUL MUQEETH QURESHI, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 TO 16: - SENIOR COUNSEL REP SMT. SALEHA BEGUM W.P.NO: 14737 OF 2024 Between:

1. IVlohammed Fayazuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain N/ohammed [vlohiuddin Khan and Late Muzaffarunnisa Begum, aged about 82 years, Occ- Business, FVo H.No.3-5-782169, King Kothi, Hyderabad.

2. tvlohammed Sharfuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain Mohammed Mohiuddin Khan and Late f\,4uzaffarunnisa Begum, aged about 74 yearc, Occ. Business, R/o H. No.9-44-6 1 /76/4, tvleraj Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

3. Mir Azam Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam Ali Khan, aged about 53 years, 4. Mir Hamed Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam Ali Khan, aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ati Banda, Hyderabad.

5. Itilir Ghousuddin Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam AIi Khan, aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. 6. khadeerunnisa Begum, D/o Late lvlir Moazzam Ali Khan, .aged about 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.20-4-229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad. 8 iyfi:,.iJ,.:1 -Ariineil'"nlo" trir:i ;adda. praGinnjgii. sJ"rnoJi"olisoor,ro occ. uo r ie I otd. Rio H No zo _q _zig t i](hti*1jrl'_vo ( )ra Di rd. T Naw:rb I\4c l- iuddin Khan, s/o Late_ A,4ohammed rftekharL,crdin Ari Khan, aoed abou .5 r,r>ars. Occ .Business, R/"-HN;.i-8 5it,s, a.azak Gadh. Violar ^ l/a,r.i, o. Azarr urtrlrs. . IJlo Late l,4ohammed lftekharuddirr AIi [ih. rn, aged about 66 ^ years, o,:.; Househotd, fl9 F.t No 20_e doiz, oooif-l e,,* HvoEi;;;""". "" 9. Bash.;e"L, rrrsa Beoum, wlo laie nlonirimbi?I) ,l irr" rr.i.Jlililta ,oort 71 year; lr,;c. Hou-sehotd, nyo n.rrrci.ib:+':iistii', Khitwatt-. Hyderabad. 10 1\'4oham r.rr Anwar ut Haq-Ansari,-slo Lrie'rri,ir'a m r re,J Zia ur Haq Ansari. Aged r,ir;r 5t vears, O.c. H.f.tr:O.Z_rd+fi6i, Titfi Darwez I FlvderabacJ 1 'l . lvoha rr n: ' l- Noor ur Haq Ansari. S/o Late [,4oh,:mn ec . ria ur Hao Ansari. Aged ao .rt J7 vears. 'occ. ersinLs-s.'Rv;'"H N; ,_o i'.izgni,"*rilll,i"r1ii: Hyderat,acl 12. Moha lrn :r Srra j ul Haq Ansari,_S/o.Late Mohamnred .lia t, Haq Ansari. Aoed .^ about 5(r ,s. ,r occ. BJsiness.'R/;H.ii;.ib";:izs)r r xhir vath, Hvderaba-d l3.JamectL nrrrsa. D/o Late. lvohammeo ziiri nlq'niisa; A; jj;b;,i&%"r".?; 14.lVloharrrr,rc \srar ul Haq Ansrri, 57o f_it"'iirfotur,r".i Ghayazul Hao Ansari 4q vears' o"c p"i. se.vic".'ril" r-i.r'i"'::o-q:16-0"'rlr..iillipi,?i, '15. lvloharrrtr:J ,\brar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lVohamrneci Ghayazul Haq Ansari, 46 vears occ p',i. s";i;;.'rii" H.r"ro:o a 260, Himriratpura, 16. I\.4oha nrnter, t:hrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lvlohamrned Gha,lazul Haq Ansari. ls vears o.. put. s6*[u''{1" ii.nr" zo-:-260 Himriratpura, fl933,,if?!' 17. QutubLrn ris:r, D/o Late J\Iohammed Ghayaz ul Haq A ns21.1, Aged about 42 years C,;c rousehot.I nyo u tito.Zo_+-)06, iirirriprr,r, Hr,derabad. i8 Ahmeourrr js; D,o Latel.4olammei ch;;; ;i [;'q ii.",i"n?li"rbout 4e years, 3,;c. HousehorcJ nyo H.No.tZ_Z_iSZ N/;l'iJrorr. Fyderabad. '19.N/ohamnect t:ayaz Ati xn3",.sl, r;tg.rrri:rir',#,il,i H, ssair Ali Khan. Aoecl igl+ eliia,2 "ii;$:ffi%"6: lnqpg, S/oArlohammed Nisart,hmr.d.Agedabout40 ]usiness' Rlo H No el1-ao7Aia'i sr;rth, cor ;nny. rorichowki, [?il,t;r3,1 Petitioner rlr> _1 to 19 are Rep by their GpA Holder i.,:. petitioner No.20 u, or zoii i"gilt#d' ,i';ni." in="s,j[ i"sili;5i 3'n3X! 3,;,ij,lii rPr33;,F,,1iiness 3?B?,il;:,"'11:0"o,"""0.,):

20.Mr. l\,4oranrri,:dAkhi:et -nro "riir" fly:!,.,?J;\' AND ,..PET|TIONERS U:,.:,,:[ i ,rllg[rrr*1 Rep by its principar Secretary Rever ue Depa(ment, , ' Il3"?:l;: I {i'ticer' competent Authoritv, Urban Land c;,:itinr Nampaily. 3 The Col e';t : r Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. T.S. 4. The Joi.t i rL regrstrar, orri;;;i'D;#iJid;iril;, *ed ri,s Hyderabad, 5. The Distrirt R:gisrrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad. T.S. 6. rhe Gre;t rr t-triderabacl Mr";;,d;i6;ft;i6i:i"0. by its ct ref 1 l::,',# il i t i t f,i,.:l]:iilfl il ln:i:ly#[:is,l"i,, . : d rV u n i c i p a, ilits[[:l lll; I ,1',',,:T,T[:Sner-ocircre- 1 2, orrice at G rer r te r ivdera bad ",, I 9 Corporation, Office At Khairtabad Hyderabad.

9. The Assistant City Planner , Ckcle-12, Greater Hyderabad l\,ilunicipal 'l0.Sayeeda Abood, Wo. Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz, aged 67 years, residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. 1 1 . Saleh Abood Mahfooz, S/o.Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz, aged 4syears residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. l2.tvlohamed Abood Mahfooz, S/o. Late Abood Ahmed Bin lVlahfooz, aged 44 years residing al8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

13. Faisal Abood [Vlahfooz, S/o. Late Abood Ahmed Bin [\,4ahfooz, aged 37 years residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

14.Saud Abood lVlahfooz, S/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin ltrlahfooz, aged 34 years residing at8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

15. trrluna Abood [\,4ahfooz, D/o. Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz, aged 42 years residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

16. Saleha Abood ft/ahfooz, D/o. Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz, aged 38 years residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

17.Aisha Abood t\rlahfooz, D/o. Late Abood Ahmed Bin lVlahfooz, aged 31 years resrding at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana '18.A1 Anood Abood Mahfooz, D/o. Late Late Abood Ahmed Bin [Vahfooz, aged 29 years residing at 8-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

19.IM/s. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, a Public Limited Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director. Itilr. lrfan Razack, aged 68 years son of Late Razack Sattar, haVing its Registered Office at Prestige Falcon Tower, No,19, Brunton Road, Ashoknagar, Bangalore 560 025. ...RESpONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the ULC proceedings Nos. 6816,6833,6842.6870 of '1979 dated.27104/1980 in C.C. No.E/5946176 dated.22lOOl1982 and 11109/'1982, C.C. No.E/6384/76' CC No. EtBg4Bt76 issued by the respondent No. 2 to 5 as illegal, void' ultra virus and unconstitutional and consequently declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dated.08/07/2021 as null and void in the interest of justice and equity. IA NO 1 0l: ,;tcl,t,l 10 Petiticr rrc er Section .151 CpC praying that in the r;irr; u rr sta nces stated in the affidavii f roi in support of the petition, the High co rrt .ray be preased to dispense with f lirrtl of the ULC proceedings Nos. 6316 68:t3. 6842, 6870 of .1979 dated.27-04-191c in c.c. No.E/ 5946/76 dated.22-06_.r 982 arcr 11_09_.1982, c.c. No.E/6384/r'6 -:(l No. E/894g/76 issued by the respcndert N,.2 to 5, pending disposal of t1€ \^/ -il petition. lA NO: 2 oF 20"24 Petiticn urrrrt:r section 15'1 cpc praying that in the r: rcL.rrrstances stated in the affidavit iirr'c irr support of the petition, the High court m,y b. preased to direct the Respondert; rro'10 to 1g not to change the nature cf the rarrd and not to give pubricity for ,re :cnstruction of buirding in respect of rancr property bearing Municipar Nrr. il',r'323l324(pr N No. 1100847375), lloa(i \..7 banjara hirs, Hyderabad-S3t oii'r measuring an extenl of 25626.48 Sq \.ards equivarent to 21 ,427 Sq. [\lete,r-s, and bounded as follows north by. c)pen spe ce, South by. g0 Feet Road, -:rst Eiy. Stone Valley Door No.g_2-416, West Ery. Green valley. pending dispos tl tf the writ petition, in the interest of juslice rrnd r,:quity. IA NO: 1 OF 2t0"2!; Between: M/s._PFlESt't(;E,ESTATES,'ROJECTS LIMtTED, a pui jrc L rnited Comoanv rncorpoz ecl and reoisrered under the Corpr"il-. n.,:i ;so. i"pi"rI;i;Ei7 its Chai-n arr and tvllnagins DiL;;io;."M;:i;X;'ii""".;.,* ,rsed ,)8 years son of La te Ra z;, c t S a tta r. h a vr- n g" i t, ne glsi"}eo"O?ilJii' rvo. r s.lii Ir i, "ii"o, Bangarore ruo llE], n., I atcon Tower, j,irnolnrsar, AND ,R3,f ...pETtTtONER/RES[)ONDENT No.19 'l Mohamrn.c F rrvazuddin^Khan, S/o Late captain Moaam red r\,40hiuddin Khan r*j;i,,:i ;o5ti'iI' v=, o o;, B;il;;;' ffi; " al,ffit,; I,:f ii$,,1yff z. tvronamrncd S harfuddin Khan.S/o Late Captain- Arloltamrned lvlohiuddin Khan :. Business, Rl/o ^ H. No.9_.14 €rr' ,.'oilIi,i"ir1 cotony, Toti chowki, Hror";Siloo. 3. [\,4ir Azarn Ati r:han. slg 13t9 ur,i y"Ziiriiliri,(irn a]ed about 53 years, occ. B uriir e s : . R ro H No 20_4- l.s.qii. hZ t 2,'inLi., n)i,ornn, .r,. 4. [,4ir Hamerr r,r Khan C^,|r,.".y,tir"r'Z""riii?rr"n aged about 5.1 vears occ. Bus,ir e:s, R/o H.No.20-4_1g4ii|;t2,\;;r,,Rtl,urn,J,, and Lah:.VlLr::affarunnisa Begum, ageO ibbui i;,, d era bad. , H1 derabad.

5. Mir Ghousuddin Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam Ali Khan, aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. 6. Khadeerunnisa Begum, D/o Late [\4ir l\Aoazzam Ali Khan, .aged about 50 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H. No.20-4-229 I 1 1, Khilw ath, Hyderabad.

7. Nawab [Mohiuddin Khan, S/o Late Mohammed lftekharUddin Ali Khan, aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-8-507115, Razak Gadh, Viquar Manzil, Patigadda, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad 500016 B. Azamunnisa, D/o Late Mohammed lftekharuddin Ali Khan, aged about 66 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.20-3-36/7, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad.

9. Basheerunnisa Begum, W/o Late Mohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 71 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.20-4-229111, Khilwath, Hyderabad. l0.Mohammed Anwar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late f\/ohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o H.No.20-7-184/185, Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. 1 1 . l/ohammed Noor ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late A,4ohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.20-4-229111, Khilwath, Hyderabad.

12.lvlohammed Siraj ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late l\/ohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.20-4-229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad. '13. Jameelunnisa, D/o Late [\/ohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Household, Rio H.No.20-4-229111, Khilwath, Hyderabad. l4.Mohammed Asrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late l\,4ohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Pvt. Servrce, R/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad. l5.Mohammed Abrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lVlohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad. l6.Mohammed Ehrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lt4ohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad. lT.Qutubunnisa, D/o Late lVlohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad. ' '18. Ahmedunnisa, D/o Late Mohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.1 2-2-254, IVlurad Nagar, Hyderabad.

19.[Vlohammed Fayaz Ali Khan, S/o Late l\/ohammed Hussain Ali Khan, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, Fyo H-No.19-4-8123812, Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

20.Mr. lt/ohammed Akheel Ahmed, S/o Mohammed Nisar Ahmed, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No.B-l-40/4/84, Samatha Colonny, ToliChowki, Hyderabad Petitioner No. 1 to 19 are Rep.by their GPA Holder i.e. petitioner No.20 appointed vide Doc.No.63 of 2022 registered at office the Sub Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/VI/RIT PETITIONERS

21.The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

22.The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally, Hyderabad

23.The Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, T.S. 24.The Joint Sub Registrar, Office at District Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad, T.S.

25.The District Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad, T.S. 26. The Greater Hyderabad iVlunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Office at Tank bund, Hyderabad . t2 '\,4ahfo^oz,-S/o.

32. Mohar':rr rrbood Hyderai,arl. [elanqana. COrP,;1,11 rrrt Hvderabad

27.The )lo tit :ommissioner, Khairtabad zone, Great,rr H,zderi,rbad [/unicipal 28. Deputy I\t.,rici[al commiss,ioner., Ctcle_12, Office at C;reat:r Hyderabad ^^ Munir;it ar O,)rporation, Hyderabad. 29.The rrs;i;t;r.t citv planner, ctcre-12, Greater Hyderatrad r.4unicipar - - Corporirt c,rr Oftiie At Khairtabad HitJr"OlJ ' 30.Saye-,.lda ,\:ood. Wg Late Abood Ah."d Bi; Mahfoo... ag.:d 67 years, residirg i\i 3-2-3231324 Rock Cliff, RoaO trto.7, Ba,jara Lfi, , HVO.irJr'i, Telanga n:r -3'l Sareh Ab:ccr Mahfo^o_2, go.Late Abood Ahmed Birr [r,4arfoo r, aqed 45vears residirg z.t,).2-3231324 Rock Ctiff, noaO No.7, S;r,ir* f-iri.,'fiiiJr;;fi:'" Telan 3i -: Late Abood Ahmed B, r\,ra hfooz. aoed 44 years res <tinq at 8_2_3231324 Rock Criff, Road No.i B;"jr;; H;[,"r-" -- 33 Faisar Ab:c tr I\,4ahiooz, S/o. Late-Abood Ahmed Bir Ir,4: hfor z. aqed 37 vears residirrq att\.2-323t324 Rock Ctiff, noaO r.ro.zlEiniara nilil_riEE;r;;i:- Telanga n,t. 34. Saud At oorl lVahfooz,.S/o Lat_e Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz aqed 34 vears residinq at t;-2-323r324 Rock criff, noao r.ro.z, eanlara riilli Hii"rJ,ii, '" Telan<;a tit 35. Muna Al r o I l\,4ahfoo^2,. D]o .Lqte Abood Ahmed Brrr A,4arfc,o r, aged 42 vears residirq a-€-2_3231324 Rock Cliff, noaO frfo.Z,banlr* Utiti 'Hyd;;iri, " . !q.t_g Abood Ahmed Bin l\4ahro rz, aqed 38 vears residir-g ?1 8-2-323t324 Rock Ctiff, R";; N;.;,"*; rru t',iri F.y;;;;b:;,r=" Telang:arr: 37.Aisha 1io:,rt lVahfooz.. D/o Late Abood Ahmed Bir l\,4atrfoo.:, aqed 3.1 vears 3-z_323t324 Rock ctiff, nolo r.to.illantrij riir. HvZ""i;;j:.," 38.A1 Andtc r\hcod Mahfooz, D/_o. Late Late Abood Ahme. Bin t\Iahfooz. aoed ,i][... ."." i?l:T::,) 29 vears .,:sitjino at B_2_323t324 n"ct Cf iff. n"rO f. Hvdereb'rcr lera"nsana

36. Saleha LL,r>,ri Mahfooz,^D/g 7 e;" ;ir, Telangla rir " . ;;ollrr,*.r.or{DENrs 2 ro 18 Petitiorr Lrrri':'Section r51 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit Iil( d i..r support of the petition, the High Oour. nery be pleased to vacate the interirl trder 28.06.2024 in W.p.No. 14131 cf ZC24 ztrd consequenfly dismiss the w-it pertition with exemplary costs. SENIOR COUNSEL REp SMT. SAL.EHT\ BEGUM Counsel for the petitioners: SRI ABDUL MUQEETH eURESHI. Counsel for flre Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp fOi nlVef.f Uf= counser for the Flespondent Nos.4 & 5: Gp ron'iinrvrps & RE(;TSTRATION counser for the Respondent Nos.6 To 9: sRI k.sioonanru RA,c, sc FoR Counset for the Rr:spondent 19: Snr. nonrrnc58Suln uounset tor the Rr);pondent Nos.l0 TO 1g: _ t-, W.P.NO: 5348 OF 2025 Between:

1. Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain lVlohammed Mohiuddin Khan and Late Muzaffarunnisa Begum, Aged about 82 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.3-5-7B2169, King Kothi, Hyderabad

2. Mohammed Sharfuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain Mohammed lt/ohiuddin Khan and Late ,lVluzaffarunnisa Begumm, Aged about 74 yearc, Occ Business, Fl/o H.No.9-44-61176/4, IVeraj Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad 3. lt/lir Azam Ali Khan, S/o Late ll;irk Moazzam Ali Khan Aged about 53 years Occ 4. Mir Hamed Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam Ali Khan, Aged about 51 years, Business, PJo H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ati Banda Hyderabad Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.20-4-194171 1512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad

5. Ivlir Ghousuddin Ali Khan, S/o Late [\,4ir I'Aoazzam Ali Khan, Aged about 5l years, Occ Business, R/o H No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad 6. Khadeerunnisa Begum, D/o Late lt4ir N/oazzam Ali Khan Aged about 50 years, 7. Nawab lVohiuddin Khan, S/o Late lVlohammed lftekharUddin Ali Khan, aged about 65 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.18-507115, Razak Gadh, Viquar Manzil, Patigadda, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad 500016 Occ Household, Ri/o H.No.20-4-229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad years Occ Household, R7o H.No.20-3-36/7, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad 7'l years, Occ Household, Rl/o H. No.20-4 -229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad B. Azamunnisa, D/o Late lVlohammed lftekharuddin Ali Khan Aged about 66 9. Basheerunnisa Begum, W/o Late ltlohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about l0.Mohammed Anwar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late ftrlohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari Aged about 53 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.20-7-'184l 185, Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad '1 l.Mohammed Noor ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late [\/ohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 47 years, occ Business, Rl/o H. No.20 -4-229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad

12. Mbhammed Siraj ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lvlohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.20-4-229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad 13. Jameelunnisa, D/o Late Mohammed Zia ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 46 years, Occ Household, Rl/o H.No.20-4 -229111 , Khilwath, Hyderabad l4.lvlohammed Asrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late l\ilohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 49 years, Occ Pvt Service, Boo H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad 15. Mbhammed Abrar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late lt/lohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari,Aged about 46 years, Occ Pvt Service, Rl/o H.No.20-4-260' Himmatpura, Hyderabad 'l6.Mohammed Ehiar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late [Vlohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari, Aged about 45 years, Occ Pvt Service, R/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad lT.Qltubunnisa, D/o Late Mohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari Aged about 42 vears Occ Household, Rl/o H.No.20-4-260, Himmatpura, Hyderabad lS.Ahmedunnisa, D/o Late [\/ohammed Ghayaz ul Haq Ansari Aged about 49 vears, Occ Household, Fl/o H.No.12-2-254, IVlurad Nagar, Hyderabad 19.fulohammed Fayaz Ali Khan, S/o Late lVlohammed Hussain Ali Khan, Aged about 62 yeais, Occ Business, R/o H.No.19-4-8123812, Hashamabad, Chand rayangutta, Hyderabad Petitioners No.'l to 19 are Rep by their GPA Holder i.e., Petitioner No.20 appointed vide Doc.No.63 of 2022 registered at office the Sub Registrar Charminar, Hyderabad 14

20. [/r lVolrz,rr rred Akheet 4lrg9, .S/o Mohammed l,]isar Ahnred, Aged about 40 Business' R/o H No s-1-404,'ea s i;",n" :oion,,l"ioi;ffii; [?i,;;.rt];' ...PET|T|oNERS Rep by it:. (;hief AND U:;l: l;i, ,rr?:Lrffi, Rep by its principat Secrt-.tary, Re,renue Department, , ' Il3"13 ]:, j I officer competent Authoritv, Urban Land 3eitirg, Nampaly, 3 The (;o ir.,:rc r. p-1r6"rrbad District. Hyderabad. T.S. 4 rhe Joirt SL b Resistral. oni"" ,i oiStri"iR;;;.i;r- Rcd Lri ls. Hyderabad, 5. fhe Irislrr;r Iiegistrar. Red Hills, HVderabad T S o. I ne (-ir( ar:r H vdera had J\,4unicipal -Corporation, _ Comnris s rr r:r Office at Tank alno. H'Ia;;*il;i ' '" ' i3:r:::f lJ;',flH?:fff ,. Khairtabad 2one, Gieat':r H"de' bad l\,4unicipal 8. Deputy lt-ti:i6al commissioner, ctcle12, office at Gr.;ar.e, Hyderabad ^ I\rlunic p,rl r)orporation, Hyderabjd 9. the A;s srrrt Citv planner, Crrcle12, Greater Hyderabad lvl.rnicipal . ^ 9.orp!.u ir, r r)ifrce at t<hairtaOaO. Hvi;;r;;; ' 'r"' 10 The R:re 'L. Divisional ofri"";, b;ilil;;;6ad Divisior se runderabad 1 1 The T;rh ;rr,j r. Shaikoet lrlrdri, .FiGrl"bJof i#lsrn,, s,,,u 12.sayedt ,\[ r od w/rj r ate nbooo Xi;;iE;; i,rr"#iro, Ase i 67 vears. R/o f"[?l;1." i '324 Rock criff n"'i'ri"'il e";"i]ii'irirr. Hio",,,.JoJi- "' ''" '13 Saleh Al cr,,l t\,4ahfooz !/9.late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz Aged 45 years, R/o B-:t-: 2'.r.;24. nocr Criff Coid il;:i d;;j;;r?iils nyoer rbad, reranoana '-$^",[itll1 jiSiy&jf Ha"?bl;#,fi A?1ffi +B"fi i#il''""#;n"Ji"ff " l,?ilyil,-i;!iff Eo..JJ,,"nT, 'u R,x'8 |!J) l, Il?'li#*38,,,fi:""fR%g t:ffilff, ll,li!?:;i%., ?x,Ii3!.;, 17.|\/luna t,b. ,i t,4ahfooz Q/g.late Abood Ahmed Bin l,4ahtooz \ged 42 vears. R/otB 2-3I I )14. Rock crin n,jia'il"]i dj"jI[?'iirl, H]dcre bad. relingana "[1 j,f zIr,]i,yi:"."_1?4"_."1,;ft 3"i%Xl,T:j,-,iiily.,i j3:;#3"+.tJff;: 'n Ai:n8,o,:i:,)tf i""k 8i?,#:fft::l a:xl:t'il l1ilJl:1J,lg::fJ ffi#; " iltlli ll il i ; )3 y: [33f ",J5i,:L:tr: L1."ltt=,i1'##:fi[,fF;.i.ffi ,,Hi{h"r *. As:? tT?: #u?: E I i].y,1 x !? i: A%:.,, 15 Faisal-,\t oc,rl A,4ahfooz. I "irt.E.:li!:i!"rlT""??31?HX',""1,i8",1$:ffi telanqanr llttte Telanqar a State State ,"?,# F::5&',i ?,I YTf8"?S Brunton R,,;r,j Asholnagrr,bingiioi"'st"otjs.",'o ...F:ES'.NDENTS t5 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 or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IUANDAil/US declaring the action of the Respondent No.10 issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/1 225812024 dated '10.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the proceedings vide Lr.No.B 11225812024 daled 1010212025 issued by the Respondent No.10, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: It//s PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIN/ITED, a Public Limited Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956 represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. lrfan Razack, aged 68 years S/o Late Razack Sattar having its Registered Office at Prestige Falcon Tower No.19, Brunton Road, Ashoknagar, Bangalore 560 025 ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2'l AND '1 . Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain Mohammed Mohiuddin Khan and Late Muzaffarunnisa Begum, Aged about 82 years, Occ Business, R/o H,No.3-5-782169, King Kothi, Hyderabad 2. ltilohammed Sharfuddin Khan, S/o Late Captain [\,4ohammed Mohiuddin Khan and Late Muzaffarunnisa Begumm, Aged about 74 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.9-44-61176lA, Meraj Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad 3. Mir Azam Ali Khan, S/o Late ivlir lvloazzam Ali Khan Aged about 53 years Occ 4. [Vir Hamed Ali Khan, S/o Late Mir Moazzam Ali Khan, Aged about 51 years, 5. Mir Ghousuddin Ali Khan, S/o Late l\rlir lrAoazzam Ali Khan, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H No.20-4- 1941711512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad 6. Khadeerunnisa Begum, D/o Late Mir lttloazzam Ali Khan Aged about 50 years, 7. Nawab Mohiuddin Khan, S/o Late Mohammed lftekharUddin Ali Khan, aged about 65 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.i8-507/15, Razak Gadh, Viquar Manzil, Patigadda, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad 5000f 6 occ Business, Rl/o H.No.20-4-194171 1512, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad Business, R/o H.No.20-4-1941711512, Shah Ali Banda Hyderabad occ Household, Rl/o H.No.20-4-2291',\ 1, Khilwath, Hyderabad l t l I i I I I I t 16 Hyd er a lrer,l -ny" -n years Crcc, -ousehold, yg.H Nq Z9:S_SOIZ, OooJh Bo\^/li Flrde;;;d Aged irt,rr: 53 yeirs, o.c Darw:za l-l,rlsrs6!6 Aqed i,t r, r 47 vears, occ ausinesJ,

8. Azanru r. s a , D/o Late ,\,4ohammed rftekharuddin Ar r,ihan Aged about 66 9. Bash -.e rr rrisa Beorrm,. W/o Late Moham;;d Zi. ul lla.; \nsarr, Aoed about .^ 71 yeats .,;c Houiehotd, ruo H.ruo.io_+-)i6irJ.'xr,,irirI,, Fi;;;;;r""j '"", '10.l\,4ohamr r) J Anwar ul Haq Ansari, Slo Lrt; N,iolram nel 7ie rtt t.,an Lno^,. -ar'rinli.l-iv"' "i.1i;'27'.-,'1'A4i' {1t H:3il 11. A,4ohamrt:rl' Noor ul Haq nnsqli, S/o Late Moh,amrrreci ..lia ul Hao Ansari r.ri zo_a 22g)ii '-[fi;]iii, 12 ir4oha'r nr' r Srrai ur Haq Ansari. S/o Late l/ohamnred .Zra u Haq Ansari. Aoed .^ about 5r ,. rrrs occ Business. ny"-u r.ti,.ziiLizzb,ii (i rr,ri;.,ivii,?!;li* '1 3.Jame :ttrr r,,sa. D/o Late lrrlohammed Zi; ;iHa;;rrsar Ag;d about 46 vears. . . 9cc Fo rs.r) r.rtd. Rio H.No.20_4_zZsltl ,-XiriZirl. lva,,rri.t --vq'v ,vu'u! 14 1\'rlo ha nrn ;c Asrar ur Haq Ansari, sto L'aie rrriirrimreri Gr: yaz ur Hao Ansari. Aqed a;,rr. 49 vears, occ pvt service, BilH N;i:O'; rob,"'r]rifiillipi,?i, Hyderat acl . Haq Ansari, S/o Late [,4ohanrmer. Ghayaz ul Hao - pG--senzice al , r-r iirio:+ ibt] 16. I\,4oharnrr,:: .:hiar ul Haq Ansari, S/o Late [\,4ohamrneo Ghayaz ul Hao Ansari . 4s vears, bcc Pvt $ti;;-, Rl;"ii'.N; :0-j:iob,"iiiifiillipi,?i. ffi!.iJj 17.Qutub rr^:; r D/o Late_ fvlohammed Ghayaz ul l-aq ,\n;.ri Aged about 42 years )r r - r 'usehold R:/o H_ No.20_4_260,'Himmattui..a. ty, tera6aJ l8 Ahmertr'r,.,;r. D/o rite nlorrammld a"t#; ili"iraq Ans:,ri Ased about 49 years. O ; IIrusehold. RUo H.No.12_2-ZS+,'ltiuraO flabi, H,de;;6;d '19 [i,4oharr".t,r =ayaz Ati Khan, S/o lrt;-N,i;h;;;;l Hrrsra r Ari Khan. Aoed about e 2 r,-.ars, Occ Business, nyo ff_Nfo.iS:+ Ai:,ei' ti;UHIo%:l Ansar,l ge cr about 46 years, occ Hlmm ltl ,t r' ;, Hyderabad

15. It,4oharnrn,_.c Abrar ul Chand ra ya I g utta, Hyderabad Petitione.s ltr.1 to 1g 1,^" B"q ^b^V_ appointel vcre Doc.No.63 of '2022 Charm n,rr ll Tderabad. their GpA Hotder ie. petitioner No.20 ,"girfured ,i oni."-t,," d';;"Rd;;i;; [Xi!t;rfl.1' I!:,.3,t;1|;,i,',],?Blrnffi 20 llrlr lVloharrned Akheet lf.g9,.S/o Mohammed Nrsar A.hne d, Aged about 40 Eusiness' R/o H No s-1-4olfua+ sun,rtn: r:r onv]Joi;h&i; ...RESPONDE NTS/WRIT PETITIONERS Rep by its principatsecretary, rfe,,e,nue Departmenr, ,, " Iffi"?:;:f ')fficer competent Authoritv, Urban Lard ct:itinc, Nampaly, 3? IF C:,1:.-,r , {yderabad District, Hyderabad, T.S z+. rrc JUr.'r :ll) Kegtstrar, Ofice at District Registrar. Red Hr,ts Hyderabad, 25 The Dist.i ;, Fr:gistrar. Red Hills, Hyderabad. T.S. zo. I ne urrla c- ,i vderabad Jvlunicipa I Corporation, Rep by tls Cf jet u ^_ 28. Deputy v r. c iriar comm.issioner, circre12, office at .Gre;rte- t.ryderabad ^^ 29. lhe Assis.a'rt rlitv Planner,.QircleJ2, Greater Hyderabad I\4 rr icipal ^^ 30 The Re'errLr,: Divisionat gli"g;, b'.;ilil;;;b'ad Diviston, SecL.nderabad 3 1 . rh e Ta h s i d : r, S h a i kpet r',1 j Arlunicip:l Ccrrporation, HyOerJOaO Corporatic n l,ffici: at Khairtabad, Hvd;;;;; "r"" ' at Tank sL.O, #o;iltli''"' x n a i rt Joi o 2o-n i "dl" '-' [2", 0r:l i, ;;, I JTJ?: fTo". u t", H yo e. r a d rv u n i c i p a r -HJ^i,ii-lEJolT# Commir;s,o r r -Office Is', n, s tn t. "o "i, t7

32.Sayeeda Abood, W/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin [Mahfooz, Aged 67 years, R/o H.No.8-2-323l324, Rock Ctiff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

33. Saleh Abood Mahfooz, S/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin lVlahfooz Aged 45 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

34. Mohamed Abood Mahfooz, S/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz, Aged 44 years, Rl/o 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

35. Faisal Abood Mahfooz, S/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz Aged 37 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

36.Saud Abood Mahfooz, S/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz Aged 34 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

37. Muna Abood Mahfooz, Dlo Late Abood Ahmed Bin Mahfooz Aged 42 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

38. Saleha Abood ltrlahfooz, D/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin l\/ahfooz Aged 38 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

39.Aisha Abood lMahfooz, Dlo LaIe Abood Ahmed Bin lVlahfooz Aged 31 years, No 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State

40.A1 Anood Abood l\4ahfooz, D/o Late Abood Ahmed Bin fl/ahfooz Aged 29 years, 8-2-3231324, Rock Cliff Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telanqana State ...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS 1 To 20 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order 24.02.2025 and consequently dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ABDUL MUQEETH QURESHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SALEHA BEGUM Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 TO 5,10,11: GP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.2: GP FOR URBAN CEILLING Respondent Nos.6 TO 9: SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR Counsel for the Counsel for the Respondent Nos.12 TO 20: - Respondent 21 : SRl. ROHITH POGULA GHMC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HOI{CIURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR TI:EDDY WRIT PETHllrl N Nos.452O3l2o22 , L4737 12o24 and,534a 2o25 COMMON ORt'I}R: Tht: r.:, tls involved in these writ petitiorrs are tntrinsically interconr-r.c cil ;Litcl thcrefore, they are taken up irncl hea r.d together and are be tr g r.'isposed of by this common order.

2. W.P N,r .1 r2O3 of 2022 is filecl by the petitione..s S nt. Shalini Saincher a n I rr .rother, seeking following relief: ' "...issr,t, r l,'rit of Certiorctri filed Mandamus cc.Lling Jo, ,ecorcls pertcLittn I ' t ttte A) ULC Proceedings in C.C.No.E/ 5946,,7"6 tU..t2 6,1982 o82. C.C.No.E/ 6384/ 26, C.C.No.E/ Bg4B/ 76 prc:eecltng and 1 i .)!) rYos_68t a t,.:,t3 6812. 6870 of 1979 dt.27_4 1980, B,r Rec.istc:r:cl sale Deed b,'<,r,lLt1 docurnent No.193Z of 19gO dt.t,6_14 198,) anr:j Doc.645f i,,62 dt.07.09.1982 and quash the sqme as ttu,-,1 are illegal, arbitrei!. l.ic;lthanded, fraudulent, without Jurisdictton and NutL j5 V;td, mqde tn ,.r,I:ttrort ol the prouisions of Urban Lancl (leflir q and. RegulLtlct'r, /:ct. 1976 ctnd the Registration Act 190g, iiL uictatictr of the nghts !utir lt,t,,ed under Articles j4 and 3004 of the Cortsttttttirl rt , , f India utitlt ,:t L t ..: lrtr:nttctL prqger to d.eclare the Regtstetea l*u.t ipniiii Agreet <.t t D \u1tlg No.4801/202 j dt.)B-OZ 2021 as ntdl tuLd t.,ctd. and pa-s-s I r/( l. orders as mag be deenred fit trt the circutr t: 1t, ,t t; her order or ; ol llle cese..."

3. W.P. \r l. t37 of 2024 ts hled by the petit,oners_N, ohammed Fayazuddirr iilr: rr r,rnd others seeking following reli<:f; ". . .lo r.. -sr . ., Wit or Wits more appropiatelg ct Wnt o.,f ll[ctrt,:lctntus decLant.ry t r:, 'tl_C proceedings Nos.6g16, 6g3-3, 6g42, O,glO o tsfg dated: 27 (.t l98O irt C.C. No.E/ 5946/ 76 dqted.:22_06 t9B-: c.trd' ti-OS_ 1982. (:.(- t I t at384,/ 76, CC No. E/B94B/76 issued btr the re.;p.trtclent No.2 to : L,:; ille{1.1l, uoid, ultrq uLrus qnd. uncortstitt_ tioticri an.) cotLseqL?t'ltti tlecLctre the !30_i2yerea Deueloprnent Agreem,znt ltearing No.48O'/ t(,)t dofert: O8_OZ2021 cts nu qnd uoid ir. the o e,ed;f J,stice tut l. ,, c,t, itg etnd 1o pass such other ord.er or orders as fitt: r lon,bre Coutl tnol ti,:;trt fit and proper it the ctrcumstances of the co.: e..., 2 n

4. W.P.No.5348 of 2025 is filed is filed by the petitioners- Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking foilowing relief: "...fo issue a Writ or Wits Order or Dtrection more particularlg one tn the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondent No.1O issuing the proceedings uide Lr.No.B/ 12258/ 2O24 dqted 10.02.2025 as illegat, arbitrary and uiolation of'pnncipLes of natural justice, consequentlA set aside the same in the interest of justice and equitg...'

5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.452O3 of 2022.

6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prescnt writ petitions are stated as under:

7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.452O3 of 2022 that Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad, was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.7-OO guntas in Sy.No.396 (correlated to Revision Sy.No.225), situated at Shaikpet Viliage, presently falling within Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is stated that the subject land was originally recorded in revenue records as Jubilee Hills Gyra Jirayatti Patta. The entire Shaikpet Village was an ex-Sarf-e-Khas village and vested with the-then Hyderabad Goveinment upon the merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 AD)' It is further stated that original Sethwar was prepared in i326 Fasli survey, wherein the land admeasuring (i916 AD) after .revenue Ac.3220.O2 guntas in Sy.No.129 is classihed as Government land A Supplementary Sethwar of 1331 Fasli (1921 AD) was issued in 3 favour of cnt :v4oinuddin Hassan, sub-dividing Sy.\c.129 into 10 parts, an(l ii- 1,1r.129/ 1 was classified as Kancha Tattil"la,-rana, while Sy.Nos. I 29 -, t I i29 I l0 were shown as patta lanrls i I favour of Moinudcli, L{ r ssan . It is stated that Moinuddin IJ assi rn sold an extent of r\c. a6.32 gts to Moulvi Syed Mohmed Meh,1i S rheb under registered do:r rnent No.395 of 135g Fasli. It is lurther stated that Syed Mohm:,l I'Ichdi divided the land into plots an,l scld them to severzrl emir e:'rt ir-rclividuals of that era. It is specificalll. stz ted that in thc year 1!tl]( Slvccl Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted (Hit,a) F,lot No.4 to an cxtent o' .,r : 7-00 gts to Maharaja Kishen pe rsh,ld. .,vhich was accepted rLnri rL,:ted upon by the Maharaja Kishen perr;hacl, vvho constructel :r i,rrilcling on the said land, and his narle w:1s entered in revenue rt'cor.rls such as Sethwar and Wasool Baqi. It is submitted that boun l: r ,:; in subscquent sale deeds executerl ir 1933 by Mohmed Melrrir ("ide document Nos.3g3, 394 and 413 cl1' 1343 Fasli) clearlv merrt,tl t4aharaja,s possession of the subject lan,1, thereby corroboratinr tr s, ou'nership and physicai possession. it is further submitted rl i t n 1334 Fasli (1924 AD), the rumber of survey numbers irL i :: ikpct Village was reduced from 353 r.o 3,j2 due to boundary c i,.pLi ..s r,r.ilh yellareddyguda. Again, in 1346 F;rsli (1936 AD), one m rr.l li l.pplementary Sethwar was issued, anrl th,r previous sub-divisiorrs :i Sy.No. 129 were deleted ald replaced tvith new Sy.Nos.352 tc .i[... The present subject land was assigneci l.iy.No.396 4 with an extent of Ac.7.00 gts. It is stated that a Revision Survey was conducted in 1349 Fasli (1939 AD), and corresponding Revision Setwar and Wasool Baqi registers were prepared, wherein Sy.No.396 was shown as Revision Sy.No.225, with Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the pattedar under Khata No.131. Column No.24 of the Setwar describes the land as "Non-agricultural - Bungalow". It is submitted that Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, along with subsequent Pahanies til1 198O-81, consistently shows Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the pattedar and possessor of the subject property. It is further submitted that Town Survey was conducted between 1964 and 1971 under the provisions of the-then Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, culminating in hnal notihcation dated

06.08.1977 . As no suit was hled within three years, the records attained hnality. The Town Survey Register reflects TS No 1, Ward No.1 1, Block-E corresponding to Sy.No.2251396' showing Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the registered holder and Asadullah Khan (his son through Muslim wife) as the person in possession, by inheritance lt is the case of petitioners that Maharaja Kishen Pershad passed away in the year 1940 and succession was declared by Farman dated 13.12.1943 in favour of his son, Khaja Arjun Pershad' Upon his death in 1943, the estate was placed under the supervision of the Sarf-e-Khas Department. Following Virasat and Atiyat enquiries, succession was granted in favour of Raja Ratan Gopal, Raja Prem 5 Gopal, Re 3e \l,r cnder Lal, and Raja Chaman Lal A .\4ur: rhakab was issued r.irle .rr,. 1154/1959. It is stated that Raj. Nzrre,nrler La1 and Raja Chana - Lal relinquished their rights in [avou:. of Raja Ratan Gopal ancl I ri : Prem Gopal under registered deed Nr;. l1)gl196g. It is stated tt:. I l)etitioners No. 1 and 2 are legal heirs cf Raja prem Gopal, ar-r rl ti l Respondents 14 to 16 are legal herrr; of Raja Ratan Gopal. It js '-rrther submitted that Khaja Asadullah [i]Lan, son of Maharaja Krs l.r:L-r Pershad through his Muslim wife, i'eLs residing in the house (lt.:k Clliff) as a permissrve licensee anrl he ha<[no title. It is furthcr s r b tritted that Khaja Asadullah Khan passt d away in 1974, and I i; ,r idou. Khairunnisa Begum was per.mitterl r_o stay and collect rer t as z permissive ricensee and Responde n1s I to 13 are his legal heir:; It is stated that in July, 2022, petitron:rrs noticed unauthori;eC : t:ttvity in the subject land and cam€ to know that ResponderLt li l i O, a construction company, was u ndertaking mcasurenlel L: arrd on further enquiry, petititne;-s I rund that Responderrllr , ro 9 claimed rights under a develcprr:ent agreement vide docurrrrr rro.4801/2o21 based on fraudurer. t ti1.re c.aims. It is submittecl tlri: ]?erspondents 1to 9 claim ownership b,s:d on sale deeds bcari r_l ,locument Nos. 1937/ 19gO dated O(,.10 tggo and 6451 I 1982 ri:L[r:,l O7.09.1982, alleged to have been e;<er:r-:ted by the heirs of Asarrrruah Khan in favour of Ahmed Bin Brr Mahfooz and othersr' 'r're said documents are fabricatecl a.l orrtained in 'akre 6 collusion with officials, contrary to law and in violation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act, 1976")' It is the case of petitioners that all the revenue records stand in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad and there is no valid gift deed in favour of Asadullah Khan and his name was never entered in any revenue record. It is submitted that forensic report dated 14 ll '2022 from Truth Labs conhrms that the questioned signatures on the alleged gift deed do not match with the Sub-Registrar's authenticated signatures, thus proving it as a forged document' It is submitted that petitioners are the rightful successors of Maharaja Kishen Pershad' and Respondents 1 to 13 have created fraudulent documents to usurp the schedule property. The transactions are void under the ULC Act, 1976 particularly Sections 5(3), 1O(4), and 27(1)' as no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority before effecting alienation. It is further submitted that no notice as required under Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Rules' 1976 (for short "ULC Rules") was served on the petitioners and therefore, the entire ULC proceedings and permissions are vitiated bv fraud and non compliance of mandatory provisions' It is submitted that mutation obtained by Respondents based on forged and fraudulent sale deeds is a nuliity and not binding on the petitioners' It is submitted that the concept of permissive licence does not confer ownership or leasehold rights. As per settled law' the legal I I 7 possession alv,ilys remains with the licensor, ancl atr1, a.ienation by the license< r; r'oid ab initio. Thus the petitioners sol,ght io set aside the fraudu etr. lransactions and consequenlial do:umcnts and to protect Lhc r Ir,iiul title and possession over the sribjc:t properby. Hcnce the v'r it lrctiLion.

8. The r e,'Jxrndent Nos. 1 to 9 filed counter aflidavir inter alia stating thz. llLr: writ petition filed questioning the reg;stered sale deeds 'irle :iocnments Nos.1937/ 19g0 daLed C()_ l O 19gO and 6451 /1982 rlat::cl 07.09.1982, after 40 years frc,rn Ire date of executio.r 1s :r,). lrlaintainable. IL is further statod t1.11, i:ven if the allegations ol I-,rr-td and forgery are taken to be tr.ue , ir is oniy the competent ( i,, j court, which can decrare the sare cler,cls i rs nurl and void after :> a rr i ration of evidence and documenrr; ir r sup ltort of the pleadings. IVLrI'r dsnying the avermenLs of the r,r.r-it atrirlavit filed by the petitioncr-. . thc respondents stated that the larL<l irc measuring Ac.7-00 grs b:: I ing plot No.4 in Sy.No.129 of Shrrikpet \ illage, Asif Nagar Talrtq .,r -r af Balda (presently correspondinl4 Lo t3ar Ljara Hills, Hyderabad) .,, :s crvned and possessed by Syed Mcltzrnrme I Mahdi @ Mahdi Nav.a,_ ,l rng, who gifted the portion of the propert, in favour of Nawab Hhai r \sadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Baharlur. rlir Kishen Pershad unier- r:gistered gift deed bearing docunrent No 25O/1937 dated 23.a IsfirLrlrrr 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) and the sai,l Na.,vab Khaja l ' t 8 Asadullah Khan, during his lifetime constructed the house known as "Rock Cliff' bearing Municipal No.8-3-323/324 on the land admeasuring Ac.5-15 gts situated at Road No 4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is further stated that Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan died on 27.O8.1g74 leaving behind his wife-Khaiserunnisa Begum, sons i.e, Khaja Ahmedullah Khan and Khaja Mohammedullah Khan and daughter Jafferunnisa Begum as his legal heirs and thereafter' the Khaja Ahmedullah Khan, has gifted his 7 / 206 share in the property in favour of his niece Durre Shahwar, by way of oral Hiba on 17h November, 1974 and the wife of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan i.e, Khaiserunnisa Begum and his daughter Jafferunnisa Begum, execute d registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.81/ 1978 dated ll'O7 '197a appointing Khaja Mohammedullah Khan as their power of attorney holder' It is further case of respondents that the legal heirs of Nawab Khaja Asaduilah Khan has obtained permission for sale of the property under the provisions of ULC Act vide Proceedings No'6816' 6831' 6842 and 6871 dated 2g.O4.lgAO in respect of land admeasuring 9'928 sq.mtrs vide Proceedings No.C/743 127 11982 dated 13'08'1982 in respect of the land admeasuring 2l,aI6 sq mtrs including the land they have executed a admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs and thereafter, registered sale deed bearing document No. 1937l198O dated

06.0T.lg8oinrespectoflandadmeasuringg,g28sq.mtrsinfavour (rr+ t r Ei I I I I 1 9 of Ahmed li:rLr:, Bin Sareefa Begum, Saleh Bin \4eLitlcro;r and Amer Bin Mahloo: t ncl also executed supplementary serlc d )ed bearing documenl \:_.5451./ 1982 dated OZ.1o.1gg2 to an exr,)nt of land admeasurir g I l .499 sq.mtrs, thus the total exter: r ol 2l .,12T sq.mtrs (25,626.11 s11 r ar-ds). The vendors therein h:ve entr,red into a registered <le vcjopment agreement-cum-General por,.cl rf Attorney vide docume r1 No.48Ol /2O2I in favour of respirnclcnr \o.1O_M/s. Prestige Eslates projects and thereafter, lhe resl;or-rclcnl No.1O has obtained ne c.tssary permission from Lhc compe l.err authority and proceeded i i:lr the construction. The responclcn s r lenied the contentro, rr' rral gift by syed Mohammed Mehcl rn favour of Maharaja and consequential corrstlr.ctions by It is stated that thr: subjer t property respondents predecessors-in inte r e_sL and the petl[ioners rlrr rr :;erves have admitted that Moinudc ir-r Lrassa,r sold an extent of ,\c tr,.32 gts to Syed Mohammed Me hcri Sa.cb under registered :raic c t,ed bea.ng document No.39S/ 13I;g jrtsii :lated 20D Behman 1l)3E I'rLsli, rn hich clearly indicates that the 'enrlor of the respondents is r rvncr of the subject land in disput: arcl rl ey denied that the re{ipr:(:ont Nos.14 to 16 are legal heirs ol Mahari;ja Kishen Pershad. The rcr;;tondents also denied that H.E.H Nizam t.yderabad has issued F-irrrrrLn dated 13. 12.Ig43 declaring the. so:t o1. Maharaja Kishen persh r<l ,ramely Khaja Arjun pershad as hrs sur:ces,;or under I. irshrn Pershad K slrr:n Pershad. t ) ti- t Maharaja belongs l0 Atiyat enquiry proceedings and Virasat was issued vide D.O dated l1ft Safar 1358 (1948 AD) in the name of Raja Ratan Gopai and others. The respondents have denied that after the death of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, his successors have permitted Khaja Asadullah Khan to reside as licensee for maintaining and administering the subject property and he also leased out the property to the State Bank of India and continued to enjoy the property as permissive licensee. It is further contention of respondents that even according to petitioners, they made an application under Right to Information Act, 2O05 (for short "RTI Act'') on 23.Oa.2021 and received documents on O2.O9.2021 and filed writ petition on 12.12.2022, after a lapse of 15 months, which itself shows that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean halds and the writ petition filed is misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the same. g. The Respondent No.10 filed a counter afhdavit denying all the aliegations made in the writ affidavit and contended that the writ petition is not maintainablc. It is submitted that the petitioners, while questioning the ULC proceedings have also sought cancellation of the registered sale deeds on the alleged ground of fraud, with an inordinate delay. The petitioners are seeking adjudication of disputed questions of title and possession of the subject property by placing reliance on certain proceedings purportediy obtained under the Right \ \ 11 to Inforrr,a:i - r L Ac L, 2005. In the absence of au thern icated and admissibl: r.,i,l:rice, the genuineness of such dccu,tcltt,i cannot be adjudicarr:d irr ri'rit proceedings under Article 226 of the ( ronstitution of India. l1 iri irrther submitted that respondent No:r.it2 to 40 have institutcd rr o r.;l Suit vide O.S.No.7 ol 2023 oi rh,,, file of II Acldrtionar ('lrit:l Judge, Cily Civil Court, Hyderab:r<l, s;eck ng the very same rclie 1' >- .rLncellation of registered sale deecls datec 06.1o.19g0 and 07.09.I9112. Therefore, the present writ petitron s rrisconceived and liabk: 1< .- t lismissed.

10. Dur ng r-le pendency of the Writ petition No.r.S.2( 3 ol 2022, respondcnt \r,:, 22 to 40 (the plaintiffs in O.S.No. L oi 2Oz ll) claiming successior -ielrrs over the subject property unci,tr disl)t-rte as legal heirs of Latc \l rharaja Kishen pershad filed I.A.No.3 c,f _2(123 seeking to impleac t (t lt as party respondents in the u.rir p,:tit.i t1 :rnd the same \\,asi : l:s,ecl. The respondent Nos.22 Lo 40 also filed w.P.Nos i'17 3'' .f 2024 and 534g of 2025 raising r;rmi Lar- ( ,)n tentions of the petiriorr.r's in w.P.No.452o3 of 2022 anrl i. t[-rr said writ petitions. .o . rrr affrdavits have been fired by the rcspon,.lert Nos. 1 to 9 and rc s-ror.r( e'rt No. 1o taking similar stand as the t .,r,i Ls taken in W.P.No.45llC3 rf 2022. 1 1. Consic ercc the submissions of learned corrnse I lbr the respectivc l)ar ( s, and perused the record ; 12

12. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsei for the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that Maharaja Kishen Pershad, the predecessor-in-title of petitioners has acquired the subject property under oral Hiba (gift) from Mohommed Mehdi Nawaz Jung. The said oral gift was accepted and the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in Supplementary Sethwar and in the sale deed Nos.394/1343 Fasli (1933) and 41311343 Fasli (1933) executed bv Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of third parties, the boundaries describe the land of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is also submitted that Jamabandi register prepared in the year 1346 Fasli, the lands were shown in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad for the land in Sy.No.396 to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts and in remarks column it is shown that the building is existing in the said land' While relying on the revenue entries, the learned Senior Counsel denied the execution of registered gift deed and ownership of Mohd' Asadullah Khan' i'e' predecessor of respondent Nos.l to 9 It is also contended that the entries in Wasool Baqi, Revisional Sethwar, ROR record from 1954 to 1982 and. Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) prepared as Per Act, 1923 would provisions of Telangana Survey Boundaries clinchingly prove that Maharaja Kishen Pershad was the owner and pattadar and at no point of time, any documents have been executed attadar Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz in favour of Khaja Asa by the p lYtl"h i I I 13 Khan. It is :r1i tcd that the oral Hiba/gift require:; no registration when tl're satr t is acted upon. It js further stat.cC _hat in order to establish tl:: , th,: oral hiba was acted upon, thr: nitmc rf Maharaja Kishen P,:r;lt i cl u,as recorded in the Sethwar, rht: -clt1 eviclencing that the i)r ),)r r t\ rvas gifted by the pattadar in favcut ,rf Maharaja Kishen Pe r:,t ,r i . it is contended by the learned flcni,:r C rrunsel that after the ceErllr of Maharaja Kishen pershad, I{.E).Fl Nizam has conferred ri3.rts bf issuing Farman in favour of Khaje. y'.r-,un pershad S/o. Mah:r.r.1zr liishen Pershad. It is submitted that ,1sacl -Lllah Khan, u'ho is th. .() -- r[ N4aharaja Kishen pershad was .1rr ir.c<] to live and enjoy the pr()I(rt),- as licensee without transferring the rights and permrssivr lx,rj j,rssion is never considered to be tran:;'er c,l title. It is further sul; r it -trd that the declarations rrled by the .r'e,n -rors of the respondert N.r; I to 9 craiming to be successors of Lai-c Asadullah Khan and p:.c ir.rg hnalization of the same, has lr.uduler tl1. created permissior s irr rLer Section 2T (S) of ULC Act, 19.,6 i,icl:,. I)ermission No.6816/i 19 /,1. 6833/1979, 6842/ 1979 and 68.1J I 1 )g9 clared 27 04 1980 i, I)roceedings No.tr/ sg46l76 dated 11 2.0€. 1982 ancl 1 1.09. 198:1. t ).,1 No. E/638 4 / 7 6, C.C.No.8948 / 7 6 .r 11 r-.x :rcuted rhe subject sa.c c,:: ls dated 06.10.19g0 and supplerne nral-v document No.6451719tJil Jated 07.A9.1982 as if the exempriorL:; *,tre granted under the rrolis ons of the ULC Act and as no sur:h Pe.n ssions are available (,r-l r ( ( ord, the same has to be treal ecr as iraudulent l4 documents and hit by Section 5 of the ULC Act read with provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is submitted that the note file produced by the Government reveals that the proceedings in C.C. Nos.El6384 176 and 818948176 did not culminate in a Final Deciaration under the ULC Act, 1976. Therefo'r-e, the claim of the respondents that exemption orders were issued stands falsified, and the recitals in the sale deeds vide Document Nos. 1937/ 198O dated

06.10.1980 and645ll1982 dated 07.O9.1982 are conlrary to record. It is contended that the said sale deeds are not valid in law, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioners, upon obtaining information under RTI Act, came to know that the respondents had misrepresented facts by stating that permission had been granted by the ULC authorities for execution of the subject sale deeds. In view of such discovery, it is submitted that the principles of limitation and laches do not apply to the maintainabiiity of the present writ petitions lt is further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the proceedings under the ULC Act as void, illegal, or non-est, and therefore, the present writ petitions, which challenge the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, are maintainable even after the enactment of the 'Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act' i999 (for short "ULC Repeal Act, 1999"), as adopted by the State of l5 Telangan: I-lo,.r sccluently, this Court, while exerc sing; ir.s .jurisdiction r,rnder A:-i< l': '.). )6 of the Constitution of Indiir, L:, , c:npetent to declare the s.t (i sale deeds as nuil, void, and non-(tst irr the eye of laq'. In slrf Fo'r of his subtnissions, learned Serior Co _rnsel relied upon thr,' rLr'-L:;ions in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others as, Mahboob ,Begnunl; Director of Endowmentq Gooernment oJ Hgderabo.d. erul others us. Akaram Ali2; Ninga uwq. us, Bgrappa Shiddappa tti.reknrabar a.nd. others8; SUed Shai\ Ghulam Ghouse hIc' t -;t.tt,l.din os. Sged Shal Ahmed Mohiu.ddin Kannisul Quadria; )tlo, :feg Bahadur Sriuastaua us. Lri stnt.ct Jud.ge, Varanasi;; {ilrtte of Gujarat and. others os. Parshottamd.as Ranndas Fcr-tetl and others6l K.S. Martgappd us. K.7,. ,llid.d.alinga SettgT; The. (io,uernrnent of A.P. us. J. Raghothamq. Redd.gg; Col. Denzgl Vtinston Ferries us. Abdul Jaleele; State of Madhga Pradesh us. lj u rend.ra Kumar and Ors.to; (tppari Muttq.mrnq vs. Special 'l'rtl.Lntnall I . Pallqu Sheth us. Custodian ant:I otherst2; SC 23 (Paras 19 & 20) SC 62 (Paras l0 & 1 1) SC 206 (Paras 5 & 6) 1 (1955) SCC C nlLrrr 2 (1955) SCC C nlLr Lr 3 (1968) SCC C n 1ir ri 1 (197 ll 1 S(lC 5!)'' (Para 19) i1982S CC )r lirLt Pr,rras 5 & 6) . L (1988) I S(lC lil,l (Paras 10 & 12) . ? (1988) SCC Cnl r r Kar-53/ I.L.R 1989 KAR 425 (para 12) 8 (1991) SCC C nt r t AP 3O (Paras 16 & 21) , 11992) SCC Cnl r r AP 1 (Para 14) 'o (1995) 2 S:C )'27 {I,aras 3,4 & 5) rr 1997 SCC O rlir: Al) 433 (Para 49) (2001) 7 S l( ;.19 (Para 48) ''? \ i I ! I6 Joseph Setterdnce dnd others vs. BennA Mdtheu and othersls; Hamza Haji us. State oJ Keralq qnd othersl4l Prem Singh us. Birballs; A.V.Papagga Sastry and others os. Gouenunent oJ A.P and. othersl6; Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki us. State of GujaratlT; Ritesh Teuari us. Stdte oJ Vptei' HaJeeza Bibi and others as Shaikh Farid. (dead) bg LRs. and othersle; Union o;f Indio tts. Ihraheem llddin and. anothePo; P. Viiaga Jgothi us. The State of Andhrrr Prad.esh and. Ors.21; State of Orissa us. Fakir Charan Sethiz2; Madhukar Sadba Shiaarkar us. State of Maharashtra and others2s; Stdte of UP vs. Adarsh Seos Samithi2a; S.P.S. Ratho re us. CBP'; Sunil Kutnar and. others us. State of Maharashtra and others26; Jamila Begutn as. Shami Mohd. (D) through L.Rs. and others27; The Competent Authoritg, Calcuttq us. Dauid Mantosh and others2s; Partdp Singh us. Shiurann2s; Saurau Jain and dnother us. A.B.P, Design and 13 2oo\ 7 SCC 667 (Paras 7 & 8) t4 (20061 8 SCC 210 (Paras 15 & 16) 15 (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Paras 16, i7 & 18) tb (2OO7l 4 SCC 221 (Paras 21, 22, 27 , 2a &, 3Ol t? (2008) 12 SCC 353 (Paras 18-22,24 -25) 18 (2010) 10 SCC 677 (Paras 2 1, 27 , 31, 32 &,351 re (2011) 5 SCC 654 (Paras 26 & 27J 20 l2ol2l 8 SCC 148 (Paras 85.3 & 85.4) \ ,' (2013) SCC Online AP 418 (Paras 14, 15 & 16)) 22 (21l5l 1 SCC 466 (Paras 17 & 18) ,3 (2015) 6 SCC 557 (Para 271 24 120L61 12 SCC 493 (Paras 4, 5 & 6) 25 (2ol7l 5 SCC 817 (Para 471 26 2019 SCC Online Bom 959 (Paras 9 to 12) 27 (21l9l 2 SCC 727 (Paras 2 i & 22) 28 (2O2Ol 12 SCC 542 (Paras 44, 47 & 64) 2s l2O2Ol 11 SCC 242 (Paras 25 & 26) t7 another3'); ;}tdte of Mo.dhgd Prad.esh us. Chisilolsl; Asst Cotnmissionctr of Prolu and. others as. K.Anjaiah and other#2; Assef, Re<: c n.struction Compang (India) Linited us. S.P.Velagutho'tn and otherd3 and tlmad.eai Nonnbiq.r us. Thmq.rasse ri .R oman Catholic Diocesesa.

13. On :he,rtter hand, Mr.Abdul Muqeeth eurcshi icarned Senior Counsel relrr r':;r:nting Smt. Saleha Begum, learr.ed :ou;:sel for the responder t lJcs.22 to 40 in W.p.No.45203 of l\O22'.lpe Lttioners in W.P.No.534I :rf 2025 argued that the responder: I lii>s.2 ] to 40 are the succc ;so.s of l-ate Maharaja Kishen pershaC tL rourlh his wife Ghousia llei: - rr. f t is submitted that a Civil Suit v.clc, .).S.No.1 of 2023 on -h: f le of II Additronal Chief Judge, r]itl. C jr, il Court at Hyclerabacl. secl<ir-rg to pass a preliminary Decre: b] allotting 1/:.a share to th,: :lrintiffs, 2/:ra "nr." respect ol' tl e sr it schedule propert). by metes anrl bouricjs as shown to the defenriant no s.1 to 3 ir-r in the plai t 1 :; : I erlnle; to pass a final decree pursuant to ltrcliminary decree br, l[ f,() ]ltll-tg Advocate-Commissioner for par.:ttior: of the suit properry b y "r,,: _,rs and bounds by allotting the shitrc r.o t} e plaintiffs and defe,ciLrrr nos.1 to 3; to declare the register.d r.iare Deeds document Nrs.1937/ l98O dated 06-10-1990 and 6z.r>1,/ 982 dared 30 (2022) 18 llCC :-r33 (Paras 20 lo 22, 43 E 44) 3t 12022) 17 licC 517 (Paras 11& 12) 32 2022 SCC'. Orrl :r I 'l'S 1 162 [DB] (Paras 72, Z3 e 74) 33 2022 8 SC I I I iParas 53 to 58) 34 (2022) 7 S(lC (rl (l']aras 12 & 13) 18 R 07 -09-1982 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs; to declare the registered Development Agreement-cum-GpA vide document No.48Ol 12021 dated O8-O7 -2O2I as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and to grant perpetual Injunction against the Defendant No.13, their agents, representatives, GpA holders or anybody claiming through them from changing the nature of the property in any manner whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein) frled an app[cation under Order VII Rule i 1 of CpC seeking to reject the plaint and pending adjudication of the same, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed I.A.No.599 of 2023 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit. However, the trial Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 dismissed the suit as withdrawn but did not grant liberty to file fresh suit. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos.22 to 4O hled C.R.P.No.2379 ol 2023 on the file of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 fi1ed W.P.No.5348 of 2O2S questioning the Proceedings vide Letter No_B/ I225A /2024 dated 1O.O2.2O25 granted in favour of respondent No.10 on the development agreement vide document No.4aOl 12021 dated OA.O7.2O2l said to have been executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein. It is contended that the initial application submitted by respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and their developer for issuance of No ./ d. l9 Objectio'r C:'t ficare (NOC) was rejected by the Distrir:t C >llector vide Endorsemerrl llt.B,r 30/2025, on the ground that n.rit pe itions were pending t,e or( this Hon'b1e Court. However, cc)ntri11J. o the said stand, rer;pDt-Lr1:nl No.1O subsequently grantec I\'()Ct vicle Letter No.B/ 122,5t 1 .l )24 dated tO.O2.2O2S, on the g;-,run,1 that no Governmert i.,r:rest was involved. It is submitted tha. sr-r rh action is inconsiste rt .,'ith tl-re earlier stand taken by the author ties and is tainted *,i :h :t a iice. Thus it is submitted that tlLe a :tior I of official respondcnts ir-r i ssuing the impugned NOC is illega I :ind ur ayed to set aside the szunr'. ),4. Mr. Wasitr Ahmed Khan, learned counsel .or thc r.espondent Nos.1 to 9 v.o:ll submit that Syed Asadullah KtLan S/o Maharaja Kishen Per slraC acquired the property under registe r,:d g,ift deed in the year 19ll!' f:.om its lau,ful owner Moinuddin Sahe t, r{ehdi and after enaclr e, . of ULC Act, the children of Late rir.ec Asadullah Khan filed c e (:lerarrons in CC No.E/5946176, C.C.No.Ei6384 lT6, C.C.No.894 8 ,"2(, in respect of the subject propcrt-v and the declarants tl e r.r.rr-i obtained the permission to ali.natl t [.r:: property under the []r( )\'r s i lns of ULC Act and thereafter, the res oon,:1ent Nos. 1 to 9 purche s,,<l ,lre subject property under registerr:d s,rle rleecl dated 1937 /1980 rkrt,:1 06.10.198O and, 645111982 crare,rl O.:.Og.lgg2. The learnerl j()r trsel clenied that petitioners are succ,tssc r-s of Late 20 Maharaja Kishen Pershad and issuance of Farman by the-then Nizam Government in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad and obtaining Munthakab No.1154/1959 dated 07.01.1959. It is further submitted that the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the property from the year 1937 and at no point of time, neither the petitioners nor any others claiming the rights as successors have disputed the ownership and possession of the respondent Nos.l to 9 and in fact, for the first time, the petitioners filed O.S.No. 154 ol 2023 on the fi1e of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking mandatory injunction and consequential eviction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and on the application hled by the respondents herein/ defendants therein, the plaint was rejected on 26.02.2024 and the writ petitioners hled an appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.96 of 2024 and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further contended that petitioners in W.P.No.452O3 of 2022 are not having any right to question the sale deeds and witLr a mala fide tntentioo, taking advantage of repeal of ULC Act, 1976 and destruction of the records, on vague allegations, W.P.No.452O3 12022 has been fiied. There is no foundation for the allegations in W.P.No.452O3l2022 on the teeth of ULC proceedings Nos.6816,6833, 6a42,6870 of 1979 dated 27.O4'79aO in C.C.No.tr/5946/76 d,ated22-O6-19a2 and 11-09-1982 and in view of serious disputes relating to title, possession and succession and /l --- 2t entries m,rc.j in the ULC proceedings, the writ petitrcrr i:- tor a proper remedy lo iiltr.rLte their grievances and prayed 1br rlisrr issal of the writ petitiorrs I n support of his submissions, learnerl co.rnsel relied Mq.ntoslL ttrtct others (supra); The Aurouilte Foundation as, Natrrshrr sitcu-egss- Ro:tto,n singh os, Nirmal tlitl3c,,. Mriftmog Maitg os. l')hltandl Koleg3T; Ilma Deui us. Anand Kr,tma,98 and Dq.rnod.ar ltloragan Singh us. Sard.ar Hira. Singh3s'.

15. Mr. D a rn r ealapati Srinivas, learned Senior Cor rLse I appearing for Mr.Rch t Pogula, learned counsel for respon,lenl No.10 in W.P.No.452t)l) tl 2022, vehemently contended that re;p,:rr der-rt Nos.1 to 9 are trr lar,,'ful owners and possessors of the slLbjcr:t property, having pu-ch..s;r:d the same from the rightful owrrersi a{i.e r obtaining necessan' p,-r lr rJssion for alienalion under the provisi:l.ts ,tf rhe ULC Act, 1976. IL js submitted that such ownership is srrbst rnliated by the docurent; li1ed jn support of I.A. No.1 ot 2023 ir r,\/. ,.No.45203 of 2022. I1 i ; -r1ued that the registered sale cieec s i n qu, :stion were executed I . :11 prior to the insertion of Secti.n 221 ,.\ into the Registration .{ct, 1908, introduced by the A,:ihrir pradesh Amendmcrrt A. . 4 oI 1999, which came into force c,n o L.o.!. 1999. The ^ 3s Civil AppciLl '{o li651of 2024 dated lZ.O3.2O2S = 2025 I|;SC:.+ti so Laws (SC) )-A2 )- LL-21 :7 Laws (SC) 2t),,.+ ./ ,5O 38 Laws (SC)-2C2-:-1 11 3e 2OO2 2 CalL_ (r3 .,2OO2 O Supreme (Cal) 305 r 22 n learned Senior Counsel submitted that even a perusal of the photocopy of the note file in C.C. No.815946176 makes it evident that exemption orders were passed under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of ttre ULC Act and the same is supported by the records in File Nos.E/8947 176 and, E/8948/76, wherein orders dated 1O.08.1982 reflect that the declarants were protected under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act and that there was no excess vacant land available for vesting. It is therefore contended that in the absence of any excess land vesting with the State Government, neither the State nor the petitioners in W.P. No.45203 of 2022lrespondent Nos.22 to 4O, have the locns standi to challenge the ULC proceedings or the sale transactions, particularly after the lapse of several decades and following the repeal of the ULC Act. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 do not confer any power upon the Registering Authority to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of the documents at the time of registration. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Shri Sohan Lal as. ltnion of India & anothetao; Mohan Pandeg & another us. tlsha Rani & other{l; State of Raiasthan U.s' 40 (1957), SCC Online SC 39 +r (t99) 4-SCC 61 e 23 Bha udni ltlittqh & othersa2; State o! Rrr.jqsthan us . Mangital pindwala3; .E:!ina MurlTdhar Hemdeu us. Kanhai.gq.l,izl lnkrdm Hemdeva'; B,himabqi Mahadeo Kam-bekar as. Arthut. Import & Export Co.,<:; Chairman, Grid Corpn. ojt Ortsso: Ltd. ,s. Sukaman.i Ltasa6; Dilboo (Dead) Bg LRS and others v:;. Dhanraji (Dead) and c,rilter*7; Sged Kazim Bahadur us. Disfncli Collector, Hgderabo.d,t' , Raidurg Co-operatiae House Build_ir,rg Societg Limited as. 13 <nrernment of A.P. & othersae; yanq.la Malteshtoari os. Ananthttl d Sagd.mmdso; Surej Lannp & Industries Put Ltd. as. Stdte oj gqq1anasli Shalini Shgam Shettg us" Rajendra Shankrzr Pttti,t.s2; Sutati Ferro Allogs priuate L,imited. us. Orissc Industria,t ll'n.,frqs7ro"*re Development Corporation &., Othersss ; Uma Devt &t c,l:hers vs. Anand Kumar 6x others (su1tr.ct); Satga pal Anand us. Slr:(rte of Madhga Prad.eshsa; Roshincr T" us. Abdul Azeez & c,thersss; Popat Rao as. Patil as. State o.f Ma,harashtra 42 1993 Supr ( ) :i(ll306 43 (1996) 5 S()C (,r) ++ (1999) 5 S(lc i:2 2 +; ()ol9) 3 SCc l! l 46 (1999) 7 SC]C 29t 47 (2000) 7 soc i ()r2 48 2002 SCC lrI ire AP 437 4e 2003 SCC lt t ine AP 323 so 2006 SCC lr Line AP 9O9 sr (2009) 7 soc : (i.J s2 {201o) 8 soc : il() s:12015) 4 SOC 2 O.r s4 (2O 16) 1O S C L'(r'' ss (2019)3s()c 3.t(1 -: & other*6; Gaurqa Jaisual us. Ilnion o;f India & otherssz; Gdnesh Industrial Estate as. Ad.dL Deputg Collector and. othersss; Padhigar Prahlad.ji Chenanji (Deceased) through LRs as. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Decea.sed) through LRs and. othersie and Rushali Khera us. Gout of NCLT of Delhiao.

16. Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 17 to 2 1 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that the originai records pertaining to Files in C.C.Nos.6384/76 and8948176 have been produced before this Court along with a Memo dated 02.05.2025. It is submittecl that as per the entries in the revenue records, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad is duly recorded. However, the petitioners, who claim to be his legal successors, have not filed any declaration under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976, and are now disputing the declarations made therein while seeking a declaraLion that the sale deeds in question are nul1 and void. It is submitted that in view of the repeal of the ULC Arct =n the year 7999 and its adoption by the State of Telangana on 22.O4.2OO8, the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions are misconceived and not maintainable. It is contended that in the absence of any challenge to Proceedings No.6816, 6831, 6842, s6 (2O2Ol 19 SCC 241 s7 2O2l SCC Online Del 3456 s8 2021 SCC Online Guj 749 se ()o22) 12 SCC 128 60 2023 SCC Online Del 1320 25 Court bv in s and 6871, iL1[ lated 29.O4.tgg}, the petitioners :n \/.F,.1,1o.45203 of 2022, as ri'e 11 as respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and 22 to 40. arc ,1t hberty to agiate thei - r-'spectlve rights, if any, before the (oml.,etent Civil Iuting a comprehensive civil suit lor <lecla ralion and partition o1- t r. subject 1ands. It is further subrnift,.d rhat, in the absence o1 av rilLbility of the original file in C.C. N:.5946/ Z6 and the proceedinp,s :rtanating therefrom, this Court :ariiro L rely upon Photostat cr p tc s of the note lile, particularly wllen thc same are seriously clis -rr-cd by the contesting parties arL(r $r,]en such documents ci:r not bear any conclusive relei.anct to the determinalb I rf title among the inter se disputauts. ,l.he:.efore, present r'l'r t p:tir ions are devoid of merit and liable to br: lismissed. In support r- i h i s submissions, learned Government ple: der relied upon the c:c .i,. i:n in Smt. uma Devi and, others us. Srrt Anq.nd Kumq.r and ,ltlfters (supra).

17. A coirr' ;f the instructions filed in W.p.Nor;.4 52O.J of 2022, 14737 of 2)2 I ,r:td 5348 of 2O2S by the Special Deput,,, CollecLor, Urban lancl Ce irg. Hyderabad, along with the Merno, is rcproduced belorv: ! t 26 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO W.P. No.tt5203 of 2022 Between: 1. Mrs.Shalini Saincher, D/o.Rajha Prem Gopal Sincher, aged about 53 years, R/o.Pot No.9 Road No.9, Trimu(hy Colony, East Maredpalty Secunderabad - 500 m6

2. Mr.Samrat Saincher Nag, S/o.Shalini Saincheer aged about 25 years, Ryo.Plot No.9, Road No.g Trimurthy Colony, East Maredpally Secunderabad - 500 026 AND Petitioners The Special Officer, Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally, Hyderabad & Others MEMO Respondents. May it please your Lordsnip It is submitted that in compliance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above Wrft Petitions during the course of hearing. The respondent No.17 (Special Deputy Collector, Urban Ceiling, Hyderabad) was directed to explain the .easons for the unavqilable record in the fite pertaining to the special proceedings under ihallenge in the above Writ Petilions while producing the record pertaining to ULC proceedings against the declarations filed by the declaranls Accordingly, the respondent Special Deputy Collector (ULC), Hyderabad has issued inskuctions to the ofnce of the Govemment Pleader stating that the proceedings pertaining the permission under Sub Section 3 of Section 27 of UL (C & R) Act, '1976 was issued on.29.04-1980, and the said proceedings issued under L.Dis I, I 27 are dest o)€cl after a period of one year from the date r:f dis;posal of such proceedirll s A copy of the said instructions is fired hererrvith for ready perusal a n: trcord of this Hon,ble Court. j upon tl- e 1Lr, l, is, turther submifted that during the course of hearing, I have relied ; ment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court of Inciia ir Civil Appeal No.471rl r>f t2 125 and batch dt.02.04.2025 wherein in para No 13 & 14, it is held that re J s;tration of a document seryes as constru(;tive notice to all parties <;o tr;r,,r rred etc., it s subnrjtted that a copy of the said party authority on t,y me is also filed he-ervit-r for kind consideration of this Hon,ble ,lourt for befter adjudicarior crl the above Writ petitions. Henc e oray the above stated documents may be ta<en on record in the intere st cf j I stice Hence the l 4e rr<r Place;HyCe,racad Date : 02,0I .2125 \4.' Gorurnr"nt p( der (Ass ignment) ^ r-' I {i, ^-. tor ,,ssrgn ilei:, ,. t 5 :i7I ) ' High Couri, Iii:t , -:. ,r,S, 15571 1 i ; I 28 INSTRUCTIONS IN W.p.Nos.4S2O3 OF 2022, t4731 oF 2024 AND 5348 0F 2025. It is stated tl-rat the permission under sub se ction (3) of section 27 of UL (C&R) Acr, L976 issued by rhe Compcrent Authonry, ULC ro Jerfferunnisa Begum and (3] others was issued on 29_O4.l9gO for Municipal No.8-2-323 & 324 for an extent of 9928 Sq.Mtrs oI Banjara I Iills, I I_r'derabad. 'l'he said procecdings issucd undcr t,.Dis , the periocl of thc said disposal is onc vear. Aftcr complction of one ycar, the sard disposals :rre destroyed an..l at present no such dispos:rl avarlable in thc Ut,C o[[ct: o{o4 SPecra l Depr-rt Collector, Urban Land Ceili Special , Hyderabacl Collector Urban Land Ceiling Hyderabad Disrflct,

18. The brief history relating to subject lands is. necessary to decide the nature of claims of the parties.

19. The lands under dispute originally forms part of ex-Sarf-e-khas village (previously under the ownership and control of the H.E.H. Nizam of Hyderabad) arld vested in the Diwani Hyderabad regulated under the provisions of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. : .:ett } ,,1 ! 29 The DiwarLr E:;:tite in Hyderabad, also known as Di\\ani lancis, was merged r.r,itlr ire State's land holdings in Februarl', .949. This merger o(:(-' t --,-',l following the Hyderabad Sarf-e'-kfra,i (Merger) Reguiation s en i the Hyderabad (Jagirs) Abolition RelJu^ar.ion, 1949. Original S:tfr;,'rrr (Settlement Register) was prepare<1 in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD s' ().\ring the lands in Sy.No. 129 v,,ittr an extent of 4c.3,22O.C2 g:, :r classified as Government land. it is stz ted that a supplemcr tz ri Sethwar of l92l AD was issrred ir-r favour of Moinuddir Li ,rssan subdividing Sy.No.129 into 0 rarts and Sy.No. 129 / 1 r,as classified as Kancha 'I'hat:ika ta, while Sy.Nos. 12!)/2 tc I29 l1O were shown as patta lzrnrJs rr favour of Moinnddir Ilitslan. It is further stated that Moinud<iLn Hassan sold an extent tf l.::. 186.32 gts in faovur of Moulvi Syed l\,,loh; ned Mehdi Saheb, un 1cr :-,rrlistered sale deed vide document \o.:i95/ 1358 Fasli (1948 AD). [: :; lurther stated that Syed Mohd. Mehdi Sa.h,:b, divided said lanrl n c ,:trious plots and sold to several e:nirr,:nL ndividuals of the era IL i; also stated that in the year 1930, Siyed Mo ed. Mehdi, oralll, gifteC {l I I k a) PIot No.4 to an extent of Ac.7- OOgts ir r favour of Maharaja Si" h ishe n Pershad Bahadur Yamin us-Srrltar Lat, (prime Minister (c'.e ttcot of Hyderabad), and the said Hit,a was zr.cted upon by Maharaja <.jshen Pershad and a bungalow was cc,nstr ucted and the name ol X{aharaja Kishen Pershad was recorctecl in all the revenue re:orrls, such as Sethwar, Wasool Baqi and olher records. It I ; \ '] 30 is stated that in 1334 Fasli (1924 ADl, the Survey Numbers were re- assigned varying extents and reducing the survey numbers in view of boundary disputes with Yellareddyguda Viilage. It is the case of petitioners that Sy.No.129 was divided and a1lotted new Sy.Nos.352 to 4O4. It is further stated that after adopting Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 for the Telangana Area of the Andhra Pradesh, the Town Survey was conducted and the property in dispute is corresponding to T.S.No.1, Ward No.11, Block No.E corresponding to Sy.No.225/96 showing the names of Maharaja Kishen Pershad as registered holder and Mohd. Asadullah Khan, (his son through Muslim wife) as possessor.

20. The case projected in the present writ petitions is that one Mohd. Mehdi Saheb @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung was the original pattadar of land admeasuring Ac. i86-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 of Shaikpet Vi11age, which correlates to Revised Sy.No.225. It is submitted that this property was subsequently divided into several parcels and sold to various eminent individuals. It is the specihc case of the petitioners that in the year 1930, Syed Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4, to an extent of Ac.7-00 guntas to Maharaja Kishen Pershad. Pursuant thereto, the name of Maharaja Kishen' Pershad was entered in the revenue records. It is also stated that a bungalow 3l was constrl c:c. by him on the said p1ot, and thr: appr_Lrr enant land remained nl s possession. 2I. On .{< cording to .h -: ,t : -rer hand, respondent Nos. 1 to 9 conte nc that their slrccessors-ln-interest of Nawatr Xhaja Asadullah vendors a-c re Khan, u,hc, .i.rs the son of Maharaja Kishen pers;hac them, Sve ci \l : rdi Saheb executed registered gifl, dced bearing Document N,r :2lO/ 1937 dateci 23.d Ishndar 1347 Fasli (1937 A.D.), in favour o[ ],Lrr,,rrb Khaja Asadullah Khan, who wers ir pos.session of the subject pr()[(rL].. The vendors of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 being the legal heirs o; \;r.,r.ab Khaja Asadullah Khan, clainr to har e lawfully alienated t1( i)r)pcrtv in favour of respondent l{os.1 tc 9 under registered s a c c e eds. Il is furthe r submitted that the sLrcr:essors of Late Asacl -rlir l-r Khan, namely Khaiserunnisa B(rg1-lr 1, Khaja AhmedullaL i.rrrr, Khaja Mohammedullah Khan, and ,lal l.erunnisa Begum fik:cl r cclarations under the ULC ,\ct, l.\,76 vide C.C.Nos.E/li9 4.t.' t6, tr /6984176, and, E/894817,5. J)er.rchng fina1 determinatior-r of ,;urplus land, they submitted apF,lication.; seeking permission 1o alicrrate the land under sub_section (3) of Sec ion 27 of the said Act anrl rermission was granted vide File Nos.6g,6, 6g33, 6842, and 6E'-()i I 979 dated 27.O4.lggo. It is the r:ateqorir:al stand of responde,tl \L>;. I Lo 9 lhat the sale deeds e>:ecuterl by their vendors are l: r, iu t and valid, and that neither the: petitioners nor I I , I 32 respondent Nos.22 to 40 ever asserted any claim over the subject land untii the repeal of the ULC Act, and are now beiatedly disputing the sale transactions.

22. The Respondent Nos.22 to 40 claim to be children of Muslim wife of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is their case that the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, who were in permissive possession of the property, misused such possession and alienated the land under Document Nos.1937/ 1980 dated 06. 10.198O and 6451 I 1982 dated

07.Og.7982, falsely representing that permission was granted by the ULC authorities. It is submitted that they instituted a sl.it vide O.S.No. 1 of 2023, seeking partition and cancellation of the aforementioned sale deeds, which was withdrawt on 28 'O4 '2023 with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the refusal of liberty to file a fresh suit, they filed C.R.P. No.2379 of 2O23 on the hle of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication.

23. The above pleadings disclose a tri-partite dispute over the subject property. The petitioners claim succession through Maharaja Kishen Pershad and allege that the vendors of respondent Nos' 1 to 9' who are also the declarants in C.C.Nos.E/ 5946176, E/6384176' ar,d E I 8948176, committed fraud by executing sale deeds even before a lawful partition among the heirs of Maharaja Kishen Pershad' The petitioners also instituted O.S'No' 154 of 2023 on the file of the III JJ Additional C r i,:f Judge, City Civil Court, Hyde -aba d, seeking injunction irr.,-l l!'iction of respondent Nos.1 to 9. L.p.rr rejection of the plaint rhc.. prelerred C.C,C.A. No.96 of 2O2z ort thc file of this Court, arrd .lt: same is pending for adjudicatitn. The main contentior .f tre petitioncrs is that no valid perrrissio. Lnder sub- section (3 ,r1 li,:ction 27 of the ULC Act was grantr:d f, rr the said alienation. : r rl rhat the documents relied upon b' rer;por dent Nos. 1 to 9 are lo r-pl,:,1 and fabricated, as evidenced f;-om tl-re photostat copies of L:r< rrl r ged ULC note hles. It is further c.ntend..rl that once fraud is es te L lt ; -rcd and it is shown that no such prc cee< lings exist, the sale cl,)t: C-r cannot be saved merely by virtue of ;.egis tration, as fraud vitie t<,s I ll transactions and relied upon th. dt cisions in S.P,Chenga'1r,,<t.aga Naidu us. Jagannath;t ancl A.ll.papagga S@stry and. otlte-rs us. Gouernment of A,p qnd others (s upra). The petitioners filrtl r:r contend that registration of a dccunrert comprises three esserrti. s reps: l) execution of the document by thts ,rxecutants signing or lf i:<i,tq thumb impression 2) presenting thc dr>r ument for registratior rrrr,1 rdmitting the execution of the dor:umenr- .urd 3) Act of registratio:t 1 any of these steps are tainted by fi,auc or are in contraventicirr 1,1 he pre vailing law at rhe relevant porn r .f time, then such docurnr:rL ,ri are liable to be declared as null anrl r,oid. In this 61 1994 SCC (i) I \ 34 regard, reliance is placed on the judgment in Asset Reconstruction Comtrtang (India) Litnited as. S,P.Velagutham qnd others (supra).

24. Contrarily, Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Governmcnt Pleader for Assignment, relying on the written instructions and the counter affidavit hled by the Tahsildar, submitted that the Special Offlrcer-cum-Competent Authority under the ULC Act, 7976 had issued proceedings dated 29 .O4.IgaO under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, namely, Jafferunnisa Begum and three others. It is further submitted that the original file pertaining to C.C. No.5946/76 is not traceable, and as per the applicable rules, the proceedings were destroyed after the statutory retention period of one year. In the absence of availabiiity of original file and in view of the passage of over four Cecades since Lhe execution of the sale deeds, and more than hfteen years since the coming into force of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioners cannot now challenge the validity of ULC proceedings or consequential sale deeds' The learned Government Pleader contended that when there are serious disputes relating to title, possession, succession ald ailegations of fraud coupled with the non-availability of original ULC records, the proper remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In the absence of any illegality or procedural 35 irregularitl' :rpl,arent on the face of the reco:d, the validity of registered sril,: deeds bearing Document Nos. i9li7l I 980 dated

06. 10.1980 t t: 6451I 1982 dated 07 .O9.1982 cirnrl,)L b examined by tl-ris Ool.rrt in a writ petition filed under A.rtir:lc ,1,26 of tine Constitutiorr ('J tndia and thus prayed this Court to clism iss the writ petitions.

25. Thisr ( lrl rt has carefully examined lhe riva. conteniions of the respectir.e p artir:s and the decisions relied upon bv trem in support of their ca:;c. ])rimct fcLcie, rt appears that therc ir; a :,erious title dispute ur r:st,cct of the subject property. WtLile ir i ; true that proceedin,ls .r:rCer the Urban Land (Ceiling ar d Flegu lation) Act, 1976 are er,t anenable to jurisdiction of Civil Corrrt. it is settled law that a declarrrt on made under the ULC Act neither cc,nJlrns title nor extinguistrcs tLr: rlghts of any party so as to valid.rte c,r rn"'alidate the registered siiLc deeds bearing Document Nos.19l]7' l98O dated

06.10.1980 t:ti 6451 11982 dated 07.O9.19a2. 'I'hc :ore contention of the petit orLcr's is that in response to their RTI aJrplicllion dated lO.Ol.2O24 -h: Public Information Officer, Urbarr Lr. nd Ceiling Wir.rg, Hyc e-abrC. vide Memo No.A4lRTIl27 /2O2t da,ecl ii1.O1.2024, furnished irrfc,rrnation stating that the Proceedings Nos;.(,816, 6833, 6842, and 52:'t) 119rn dated 27.04.1980 were not tssu'--d by their office. In ()ontrtst, respondent Nos.l to 9 rely on Phctost.lt copies of 36 proceedings dated 27.O4.798O in support their claim. Whereas, the stand of the Government is that the said proceedings were destroyed within the prescribed period of one year in accordance with the rules, and no original records are presently available. The learned counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on internal note files to support or question the validity of the sale deeds. It is settled law that a note frle is al internal record or documentation and, unless it culminates into a formal order or proceeding, it does not constitute 1egal action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present cases, there is no material on record to show that the ULC authorities ever passed hnal orders under Sections 8(a), 10(3), 10(5), or 10(6) of the ULC Act. In fact, it appears that pending ULC proceedings, the ULC Act, 1976 was repealed and the same was adopted by the State on 22.O4.2OO8. In the absence of any concluded proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, and having regard to the destruction of original records in accordance with the applicable rules, the claims of the petitioners, which are based on unverified note files, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India'

26. The Hon'bie Apex Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Compang (India) Limited us. S.P. Velagutham @rtd others (supra) observed that if a party questions the very execution of the document .-.i*.,2 ,al 37 or the riljh t . lrd title of a person to execute the clrc r,rment and present iL ic,r r: lislration, the remedy is only to go tc, Crrri Court, but where a part., ,luestions the failure of the Auth tritr- to cerform its statutory fr- r ,:.ton in the course of act of registr.ation, i cannot be said that [1-e ; -rrisdiction of the High Court under Artic:lt 226 of Lhe Constitutiorr o' h.rdia stands completely ousted. In the ir stant case, as on thc dar.: tf execution of the documents, Ll cr(. is r ,'> provision under thc F ci9 stration Act, 1 908 prohibiting r hc dc.rc ,rments for registration .1 t hc lhreshold and Section 22A wes ir sc,rli:d into the Act in the r r: , r 2o07 as such it cannot be said that. th r: Registering Authoritv fail:c to discharge its statutory duty.

27. The f tr:t; of the present case are similar tt ;1 e decision rendered by }Ion'ble Fu1l Bench of this Coru-t jn yanala Malleshw,ari qnd. others us. Ananthula Sagatnm.a omd others (supra), u'lte rci:r it w,as observed as follows '97. A; 11".,t,7A referred to in these cases, there are seriotLs ( tsDute.l questrctL: ,y fact regarding the oLleqatiotts ctf fr.c,,.t,1 oni miv.'e1t" .t " 1tinn played bg the uendors ai well as t,er ,t,,, , tloitrst eoch otlTt " tere are also questions raised. regardingl the cLtn)etetTce clnd etlti lqre\t of a person executing the documeni. lrr sorrr r cases (W.P.Nos 2:-t 8, 23005 and 23O88 of 20ofl, the sete cte,<,.a s 1pe7s cancell=c, :t'ttztime Ln AuWSt, 2003, but the wit petitiuts cre. fii,td. tuith consid<:r<,b1,: rrP,lag: In some coses, there are complaints of con< <,.[[ation of deerls lt stntments after lapse of ten Aears o,fter exc'(ut()t of t origiLa c'e:ci In the opinion of this Cour7, these are tl Le tl'tttcr: uJhi are to lte d:c' uidet tce o,'"iI"ru r.*tg l: l ydlu sufficient to decide the issue-s in .such t rrtatu'ter to "" meet th'_._.ltds of iustice. Indeed, in some ,t[ t he ._,natters l/P /v9: , " aso. est.ee2.s7938o; ioOA ,;,,., otq:tlreadu filed fo. tqg,l.gtiqt1 gtll the orders of status ouo are it.fuLq ..'[A\-refore this Co r r 1.o1' considered opinion that the parties sh;;(l bc- rte!,iledle 38 the ciuiL Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Secti Soecific (emphasis supptied) Act.." R 'on 34 of

28. The above decision was followed in Thota Ganga I'axmi and another us. Gouernment oi Andhra Pradesh and other*2, and challenging the same, a Civil Appeal No.317 .of 2AO7 was preferred on the file of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 13.07.201063 while reversing the hndings recorded in Thoto- Ganga Laxmi's case (supra), overruled the judgment of this Court in Yanala Malleshuari's case (supra) on the ground that the cancellation of document without issuing notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The judgments of this Court in Yanala Mallesh:arrari's case (supra) and Thota Ganga La'xmi's case (supra), came to be considered by a Division Bench of the Hon'lrle Apex Court in the judgment dated 25'08'2015 in Satgapal Anand os. Stolte of Mad.hga Pradesh (supra)' In view of difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges of Apex Court, the matter was referred to Division Bench (three-Judges Bench)' The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 26'70'201664 while approving the reasoning of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshuori's case (supra), observed as under: ' "46. In our considered uieu, the decision in Thota Ganga Loxmi [Thota. Ganga Loxmi u. State of A.b., P01o) 15 sCC 207 : (2o1s) 1 S9C !9it:) iOa51 *ru dealing tt'titi an express prouision' as applicable to the Stote 62 2OlO l-aw Suit (SC) 1243 63 t201ot 15 SCC 207 oo izotoi lo scc 767 : 2016 scc onLine SC 1202 39 of Arul.h ct Ptdesh and in parttcuktr uith regard. to tht reqstrat ott of an extinqu.i.;l rnz deed. In absence of such an express orolesion, it other Stote le.lrrl,tiiotLs, the Registeing Officer *oitd b" qor+t-lLec. br1 the prov,is:.ott: it llte, 19OB Act. Going bg the said prouisions, ti.r=r,,, nothing t.o itL(l. c( t{ !\1t the Registeing Officer is reqitred. to urtdettal:e ,, qurr"l judtcic I .r.q,L:ry regarding the ueracitg of the factuat posllion :rated in the clocr,n et .t presented for registration or is iegatitg, i.f tlt? tdt )r of the docutr,et 1 rrr'1,Ere.sts that tt requires to be registeled..-Tle ualiclitg of- such regist( rc,l ..ocLtrnent can, indeed, be put ttL issue ,tefure ,.; ,:our1 oJ comp e le, t I, t, r .s diction. "

29. 'lhc I t<':,; in the present cases are that :he reqi stcred sale deeds r,r,e re c:(,),rutcd in the years 19g0 and i9g2 virie document Nos. 1937/ L J,J( cated 06.r0.1980 a.,d 64s7 I 1982 dared (r7.o9.1982. As on tha. rl:Lr,: lhere is no provision in the RegistrzLtior Act, 190g prohibitingl ( ,intt: rtain the registrations and tht: Re grst .ar has no po\a'er to e {z1nr ne the validity or otherwise of the crocuments. Therefore., rlrr rrinciples laid down in yanala Malle.shtoq.ri,s case (supra), as r;r1:r o-",ed by the Hon,ble Apex Cour.r. in rhc judgment dated 26. 1f .2t_r r, passed in Satgapat Anand us. Sf,qte of Madhga Prad.esh's:: st, (riupra) squarely apply to the cases on tanrl.

30. Furthcr. tbe petitioners in support of their title relir:rI upon the cntries marlc lt _he revenue records, in the name of :_zle Maharaja Kishen Pe -s i r( . The entries made in the reve nl:c r:cords or mutations a,,oukl not have any bearing on the tit|: or pi:)ssession of the parties, z.s r lrserved by the Hon,ble Apex Cour_t rr Sawarni us, Inder Kauf... .Bakaant Singh and. qnother us. Daul at Singh 6s (1996) 6 SCC l.tl I ; I I ' ) 40 (dead) bg LRs and other*6, No;rasa.mma and others vs. State of Krrrnataka and other*7 ar..d Hgderabad Potteries Priaate Limited os. Collector, Hgderaba&8 .

31. Whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are relying upon the registered gift deed bearing document No.250/1937 dated 23'd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) executed by the pattadar Mohammed Mehdi @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen Pershad. The said registered document was disputed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.22 to

40. The contention of the petitioners is that no permission was granted to the vendors of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (Jafferunnisa Begum and others) for alienation of the subject land under the provisions of ULC Act and the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are in permissive possession. Having taken plea that vendors of respondent Nos l to 9 are not having any title, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 or their predecessors, have not hled any declaration during the subsistence of ULC Act, 1976 or initiated proceedings for eviction of Jafferunnisa Begum and others (vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9) from the subject property' The main contention in these writ petitions is that no permission was granted by ULC Authorities and suppressing the said fact, fraudulent 66 (19971 7 SCC 137 67 (2OO9l s scc 591 68 200i (3) ALD 600 4t of fraud, registered r;i le dceds have been executed in favolt:. of respondent Nos. i to 9 Il -hat is the case, the aggrieved llart,es ire not the petitionc*; , I re respondent Nos.22 to 40 and it is fo:- t.he State to exerclse I t s ,. \\'ers as per the Registration .{ct, i 9,lg seeking cancellarion r_ I thc registered sale deeds, on th: groun:l misrepres,:rttt on or suppression of material :act-l;, The codicils referred it t1r: r,iisputed documents are admiIterlL5, lrinding the parties to tlre r;:Lid documents and the same cannot. exti rguish any rights o[ t're ^i-d parties and thc registration binds lnte,. se parties to the sairl 'l c lLn-rents. If the petitioners are un<ler Lhe impression that the irf, r'r";:rid documents were executed fr-auc urer r tly taking away their rig.h,r;, they are always entitled to agitate th,.:i,. grievance before the c )llt;) itent Civil Court. Even if some o: tLLr: co,ditions in the sale d<:e Lrt rel made with a fraudulent inteniiorr to r:ircumvent the proceedirr,: undcr the ULC Act, it is evidenl fr.r,r the orders passed b5, tlr. ipecial Officer_cum_Competent A,thoritr. :nder the ULC Act, vidc pr:ceedings No.CC El/8g4g/1976 rlatccl 1 L08.19g2, that the lz nd s hich is the subject matter of the rle::l rration, is exempted rrr de,r Section a(l 1) of the ULC Act. As on tha L date, no proceedingr;.,,,:r: issued under Sections g(a), 1O(3r, 1O(,i1, and i0(6) of the ULCI A:t. 1976. Accordingly, the benefit undr:1 1ly6 U LC Repeal Act, 1999, wo._ ji enure to the declarants. In additio;t, t)re Special Depuly Col.ectr r, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has :lacr:d w_ritten , i I 42 r1 instructions dated O 1.05.2O25 stating that they have issued proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of ULC Act, granting permission to alienate the subject lands. (scanned copy of instructions is reproduced above).

32. The parties to these writ petitions are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession/ alleged fraudulent execution of documents (sale deeds) in respect of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to right, title, possession and nature of documents and its authenticity' a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of original records being traceable. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession and title; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-d-vis the true owner' whether the documents relied upon by the parties are genuine or fabricated etc ' are material questions that arose for consideration in these writ petitions. In my view, these are pure questions of fact' which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties' but not in a writ petition f,iled under Arncle 226 of the Constitution of 43 India. It lLa-s bt cn consistently held by Hon,ble l.pe;< Co ,1rt and this Court th rt a regular civil suit is the propr:r reme dy for the adjudicatron :f disputes relating to property riglts. Ad mittedly, in the cases o;'r irand, in respect of the subject properq,,, C.r_).C.A.No.96 of 2024 a1(l (-t ll.p.No.2379 of 2023 are pending for rcljr-.dicarion on the file o' rhir; Clourt. The Proceedings vide Lr.No.B,/l,22ig/2024 dated 1O.Oil .1r)25 issued by the Government reccmrl: ending the request cf ;Jr1>licant for construction of residential building/ apartment il; :l 'ro conscquence as the Governmerrt is not ha\.ing any power to jslrrr-- Lto objections for the patta landl;/ privzrt,: lands, as held by : t,:r ision Bench of this Court in District Collector, Chittoor Dt.strr c:t d.nd others ,s Smt. J\fakk a Jagalaksh1nqrr11146e . pronounccln ltrt s

33. It is a ,r cil-settled principle of law that t.lre cxercise of jurisdictiorL rurcrr Article 226 of the constitution cr I,,fia .s governed by self in.r pos.c,i re stnctlons, as laid down in va rirtt s judicial It is equally settled that HiE;h Oour is should ordinarily re fr-;r tr lrom entertaining nrit petitio_ts .*,hcr.e serious questions rris.c regarding the existence, genuinr:ness, r nlidity, or authendcit'/ ). (l,)cumenrs, or where even a fraction cf rlc ubt exists as to therr c \ ll, ( nce or non_existence. Such dispr-rtecl c1t estions of fact cannot t,c I rljudicated in writ proceedings uncler Lhe summary \ I @ Judgment rlatcq ll.1O.20l3 passed in Writ Appeal No.165il of !tOl3 bva Division Benc.r ()f lli i C]ourt < rvPvqr rlu 1u ".! 44 jurisdiction of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court' these issues are required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

34. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' for granting any relief as sought by the petitioners and the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.

35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed The observations made in this common order are only for disposal of these writ petitions and they will not have any bearing over any proceedings between tL,.e intet se parties' Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions shal1 stand closed. No order as to costs' //TRUE COPY// D/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 a 4 E 6 7 8 o 10 11 12 PSK P c IOPUC] one CC to SRI S.NAGESH REDDY, Advocate I One CC to SRI K.SIDDHARTH RAO, SC FOR G One CC to SRI IU.ARUN KUIVIAR, SC FOR GHM loPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR URBAN CEILLING, High Co urt for the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. [OUT] Two ids i; cP FoR REVENUE; High Court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT] r;;-c6b cF Fon srAIvlPS & REGlsrRATloN, High court for the state of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. [OUT] on. cc"to sRl R.A.ACHUTHANAND, Advocate toPUCl One CC to SMT. SALEHA BEGUIU, Advocate IOBUCI i*o CCt t-Cp FOR ASSIGNtUENT, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hvderabad. [OUT] one'cc to sRl wASIM AHIVED KHAN, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRI ROHITH POGULA, Advocate. IOPUCI Two CD Copies GJP 4$Y I I i i i I I I 1 : I i i I I I I : I I i I I t l9 HIGH COt]II?T DATED:17tAil2025 COMMON II)RDER WP.Nos,4,it03 of 2022,1473T OF 2O24AwD 5348 OF 2025 i r{E t)','. / .:.( i) l.i t', \t. ..1. t}N 2$25 z -c) * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT C:(]STS c6 b,(