The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IIANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No 1 in not reteasing the property in survey No.46, Raidurg, Serilingampally ttlandal, Ranga Reddy District'measuring Ac. 84.30 gts. (Subject Property) by duly issuing notification under Section 64 as prescribed under the Court of Wards Act, 135Q Falsi to the Petitioners being successor-in-interest of the origina{ly owner Late syed Akbar Hussaini as arbitrary, ilegar, u nconstitutio na r, vioratiorr of principres of naturar justice and'undamentar rights guaranteed under Articre .l 4, 21 and 3004 of the constitutron r1f f 66;2 and consequenry direct the Respond,:nt No. 1/ court of wards/ ccLA to isr;re a Gazette Notification for withdrawar of superintendence under Section 64 of Court Of Wards Act 1350F, which is mandatory, over the Subject Property ir. Sy No. 46, admeasuring Ac 84.30 rlts, Raidurg, seriringampa'y Arlandar, Ranga Reddy District, based on the Firnran dated 17th Ramzan 134gH and the succession approved by H.E.H. The Nizam in the year in favour of the petitioners and other successo rs-in- interest crf syed Akbar .1948, H ussa in i. I l IANO:5OF2 o23 Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may ce pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to protect the rand in survey No. 46, adrrreasurrng Ac. 84 30 gts' Raidurg S:riringampary Mandar, Ranga Reddy District from iregar claims and physicar en:roachments, as per section 16 0f the court of wards Act, as the Respondent No.3 is the custodian, ti, the disposar of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petitron under sie'ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit fired rn suolrort of the petition, the High court may be prr:ased to may calr for records in NA2r-r523r2005, renumbered as NA2/g5/2 012 from the office of the llespondent No.1 ror not acting in accordance with the provisions of court of wards Act' 1350 Farsi lor issuance of Gazette Notification under s;erction 64 0f courl 0f wards Act ivith respect to the rand in Sy No. 46, admeasurin,3 Ac. 84.30 gts, Raidurg, Serilingarnpally lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 4 oF 2023 Petition under sec:tron '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in su cport of the petition, the High court may be preased rq direct the Respondent rrro.1/ ccLA for correctron of a, the revenLre records '..: lt pertaining to Sy No.46, Raidurg, Serilingampally [\/andal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the Petitioners and other su ccessors-in-inte rest of Syed Akbar Hussaini. lA NO:3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1/ Court of Wards/ CCLA to dispose of the Application No. NA2/523/2005, renumbered as NA2/95/2O12, in favour of the Petitioners and other s uccessors-in-interest of Late Syed Akbar Hussaini. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To declare that the land in Survey No. 46, Raidurg, Serilingampally lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District measuring Ac. 84.30 gts. is excluded from the list of properties pending in CS No. 7/1958 as the property is still under superintendence of Qourt of wards as held in SA No. 1118/1999 dated 2410312023 by the Honble High Court for the State of Telangana. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI H.RAJESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondents: ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL & GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KIJMAR W.P. No.15956 of 2023 ORDER: (Per t,i1 ;7r,.,'6r. tn Justice N.V. Shrauan Kumar) LearneC counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar H for the petitioners Le arne,C Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. This rvr.ir petition has been filed seeking a writ of nrandamus to dcclare Lhe action of the respondent No. 1 in not relcasing the propert5r in Survey No 46, Raidurg, Serilingampaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dish'ict, me:Lsuring Acs.g4.3O guntas (hereinafter rc,1:rred to as 'the subjecr pr.perty') by duly issuing notification under Section 64 as prescribed rtlder the Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli to the petitioners being succesr;c,r-in-interest of the originally owner laLe Syecl Akbar Hussaini a s arbitrary, illegal and consequen y tcr clirect the respondent N.. 1/court of wards/ccLA to issue a Gazette Notihcation for rvithdrarval of Superitendence under Section 64 of t.he court of Wards Act, ,3 5OF., which is mandatory, over the subject property based on the Fit-man dated 17tt Ramzan 134gH and the Succession HFIH The Nizam in the year 1948 in fir,rour of the approved petitioners anrl other successors_ in-interest of Syed Akbar Hussain. 2 H^C,J&NVSK,.I w.P. No lsq56 oI2023

2. The petitioner No'1, Syed Waheedunnisa Nuzhat' is represented by the petitioner No.2, M/s' Lorven Projects Limited' in the capacity of General Power of AttorneY

3. Brief facts of the case stated are that the Subject property originally belongs to the ancestor of the Petitioner No'l' Late Syed Akbar Hussaini, S/o. Late Syed Mohammed Shah The said Syed Akbar Hussaini expired on 9ft Rabi-al-Thani 1343H and thereafter disputes arose among the family members' One of his wives by name Rasool Bee raised a succession dispute and fi1ed a petition before H.E.H. The Nizam, by exercising sovereign powers under Section 13 of the court of wards Act, 135OF, placed various properties left behind by Late Syed Akbar Hussaini' which include 1O movables and 1 I immovable properties, under the Superintendence of Court of Wards and issued Royal Firman dated 18h Raj ab 1343H (Gregorian Year 1922). When the Subject property was under the Superintendence of a series of the Court of Wards, along with other 2O propertles' negotiations have been held and compromises were reduced in wrttlng among the heirs of Syed Akbar Hussaini by way of three compromises' Thereafter, the H.tr.H' The Nizam approved the 3rd Compromise dated 12s Amardad 1337F and issued a Firman dated 17tr' Ramzan 1348H directing the authorities to arrange all the deeds and things as per the compromise deed dated 12b Amardad l33TF Accordingly' Succession Certihcate was issued by the authorities in 1358F the subject (Gregoniaq. Year 1948)' It is further submitted that 3 H,1C,J&Nvsli,J il' P Jo 15955 0t 2023 properties, along with yenkepalli Makta and Big House, r,,,ere finally to be releasecl .a:; per the approvecl ratios and that except the subject propert:.v o Lhc - properties belonging to Syed Akbar H ussain were released. As such, there is a dispute regarding the titie c,f the subject propert)' nou, sLrcceeded by the petitioners.

4. It is furtlt,:r submitted that some third parties clairring to be the purchasers of the subject property approached the Crurt by filing O.S. No.74,i 1978 seeking a declaration and injunction and another suit i.e. O.S. llo.47/ 19g5 was also filed by the heirs of Syed Akbar Hussaini cl:rirning that the subject property was not releitsed from the Superintenclenrrr: of Court of Wards. Both the suits were clismissed on 17.O4.1997 on the ground that the subject property was Government land, thereaft::, appeais were filed in A.S. No (el1997 & A.S. No.22/ 19!r!r and the same were also dismissed on 06.12.7999. Thereafter, secrrcl appeal in S.A. No.1 rrg / rggg was 1ired and the said Secon d Appcal was allowed on 75.07 .2OOt) . however, the Governmen. carried the matter in appeal to the Hon,ble Supreme Court n'r CLv;1 {ppeal No.2436 of 2016 (Arising out of SLp (c) No 24150/2010) ancl the Hon'ble Supreme court vide its rrder daLed 0 1 .03.20 16 rernanded the matter to the High Court with a timeline to decide the rr.rtter in one year. On remand, the said S.A. No. l7l8 I l\)')g was heard in length and the Court pronounced the judgment cr. 24.03.2023 wherein it is held that the subject property in Sy. Nc.46 measuring Acs.g4.30 gts., at Iiaidurp; was placed 4 HAC,J&NVSK,J w.P No,I595ri ot2023 under supervision of the Court of Wards by Firman' H E'H- The Nizam. In the said judgment in para 94, it was held that ""'I hold that the suit propertA is still under Supeintendence of court of utards and not released." While the property was kept under Superintendence of court of wards under Section 13 of the Act, physical possession vests with the legal heirs of Syed Akbar Hussaini' The Court on hearing the Second Appeal S.A No' 1 lI8 I lggg, negated the claim of the subsequent purchasers. Similarly, the Court negated the claim ol the subject lands as Government lands' It is submitted that in the S.A. No. lllS l lggg the Petitioner No' 1 (Syed Waheedunnissa Nuzhat) contested as Respondent No'20 and impleaded as 1ega1 heir of original defendant No.6. It is further submitted that earlier the heirs of late Akbar 5. Hussaini have also filed writ petitions for release ol the subject property from the Superintendence of the Court of Wards i e' W.P. No.1 1357 12012 ancl W'P No' 18983/2018' Respondent No' 1 & 2 (CCLA & Principal Secretary Revenue) jointly filed a Counter Affidavit in W.P. No.18983/2018 dated O9'O8'2018 in which' they admitted on oath that the subject property is under the Superintendence of Court of Wards. Based on the counter affidavit in W'P' No 18983/20 18' the Division Bench of this Court directed the CCLA to dispose of the pending Application No.NA2 / 523 / 20O5, renumbered as N L2 / 9 5 I 20 12 in three months. It is further submitted that CCLA has not complied with the High Court orders till date' The Court of Wards on hearing 5 ir' F \o 15956 oi 2023 [he Applicanr-s in NA2/95/2072 sent a status reporr o]1 18.01..2020. In Lhis statLrs report, there was a reference to the orders passed in Contempt ,{pp,sal Case No.33/2O17, LPA No.112018 based on the assignment ,r1 decrec in C.S. No.7 of 1958. The ..tudgment in S.A. No.IllS11999, dated 24.03.2023, para No.83 & 117 held that these are unr:c,nnected to the subject propeity. Cases rr Judgments arising out ,rl these i.e. SLP (C) No.24646-24642 /2018 and SLp No.19647-i9(t,18/2022 are also unconnected to the sukrject property. It rs further s;r bmitted that the CCLA was never made llilrty to these cascs. It is ,r lso submitted that Court of Wards or: hearing the Applicants tn li A2 / 95 I 2Ol2 on t8.O1.2020 has recorded rhat CCLA is in continuousi rltpervision over the land.

6. It is fut't:rer srrbmitted that the orders passed by this Court in W.Ps. No.1)2i'2/20t7, 16639 l2O2O and t826Sl2O2t dated

04.O1.2023 for :rppointing the Receivers cum-Commissi<tners to draw a final decrec in C.S. No.7/ 1958 is aiso not connected 1.c, the subject property, as it ir; declared as Court of Wards Custody propert5r in the Judgment in li.A.. No. ttl8l1999 dated 24.03.2023.

7. It is further submitted that under Section 6O of r.he Court of Wards Act, all the successors of Syed Akbar Hussaini based on the Nizam Appror,eC Succession in 1948, have come togeth<:r and filed a suit for partition in o.S. No.To3l2orz on the fi1e of the )('v Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, which was decreed on 2T Ct3.2Ol9, wherein CCLA and petitioner irlo.2 (Lorveri I 6 w.P. No 159s6 oI2023 Projects Ltd) were made party to the said suit and by virtue of the decreedated2T.o3.2olgino.S.No.To3l2ol7,inthelatest succession for the subject property, wherein the parties succeeding to the subject property have authorized Petitioner No'2 (Lorven Projects Ltd) to be their Registered General Power of Attorney to execute the work, solve the litigations, encroachments, conduct legal proceedings to release the subject properfy from the Court of Wards' It is further submitted that to protect the subject land from the 8. third parties, Petitioner No.2 (Lorven Projects Ltd) filed an Injunction suit in O.S. No.477 l2Ol7 on the hle of XV Additional District Judge' Kukatpally, rvherein CCLA and Collector was also made parties to the said suit. In the said suit, the Court granted Injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents and third parties from interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject proper[y' The said order is in force as on date' It is further submitted that though the Court of Wards (CCLA) is g. under statutory duty to issue Gazette Notihcation under Section 64 of the Court of Wards Act, which is mandatory' failed to issue the notihcation even after Judgment conhrming the title of the Petitioners in S.A. No.1118/ 1999 dated 24'03'2023, even after receiving the Petitioner's application dated 15'05 2 O23 &22'05'2O23 and even after tkre High Court has conhrmed that the subject property is under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards and the same is not of the Government and that the lis regarding the title and succession of the 1 HA',J&NVS(,J 1.. P )1o.159i60I2023 subject properl.is concluded and the proceedings befor: the Court of Wards (CCLA.) is being continuing more than nine decades despite there being th,: orders by the High Court two times, b,:ginning from W.P. No.71:157 l'2012 and W.P. No.18983/2018. The Crlrrt of Wards (CCLA) is a ()t,L:rsi-judicial authorit5r, however, it is rtcting in the interest of tl-rird parties to help them and is in viol;ttion of the Petitioners' rigJ'rts guaranteed under Article i4, 21 and llO0-A of the Constitution ol india. Questioning the same, the petitior.Lers hled the present wril 1;e rition.

10. Apart fror.r.r the above, the petitioners, while reiterit:ing the writ avermenls, als,r filed Additional Afhdavit, inter alia, stating that the present rvrit 1:eLition was heard on 04.o8.2023 an<l this c)ourt directed the petitioners ro submit their objections to the report filed by the Receivers cLrtr-C ommissioners and incompliance of th. said order, the petitione.s filed this additional afhdavit. It is furthcr submitted that the legzrl heirs of the Akbar Hussaini have not only succeeded in proving their t tlc to the subject property but also ex1t,:essed their concern over thc inaction of the respondent No.1 b5. filing writ petitions in w.l). Nos.11356/2072 and, 1ggg3l2023 for not releasing the subject prollrlrty by duly issuing the notihcation undr:r Section 64 as mandatecl under the provisions of the Court of Warrls Act, 1350 Fas1i. It is f,rthr:r submitted that on 06.oz.2o2s a detailerct report was submitted to th:s Court by the Receivers-cum_Commissio ners. In para 90.1 of the report held that ,,It becomes clear from the perusal of 8 W.P. No.I5956 o12023 Judgment in S.A. No.111/ 1999 dated 24.03.2023, land admeasuring Acs.84.3O guntds in Sy.No.46, Raidurg is still under the Superintendence of Court of Wards and not released.,, In para 95.2 of the Receivers-cum-Commissioners report held that " Hence the ord,er in Application No.1409/2OO3 dated 26.12.2003 passing final decree in respect of ltem 234 (i.e. the subject propertg) of 'A' Scttedule of the preliminary decree in C.S. No.7 of 1958 tuhich is the basis for filing W.P. No.1729/2009, Contempt Case CC. No.217/2014, 33/2017, LPA. No.1/2O18, SLP (C) No.24646-7/2018, RIA No.1/2O2O and RIA No.3/202O in LPA. No.1/2O18 and C.A. No.33/2017 do not make the so called finol decree holder entitle to claim ou.tnership ights and title in respect of such properties and such orders do not bind the gouemment or anA partA."

11. It is further submitted that the ownership claim over the subject property allegedly citing the assignment deed and therefore passing of the fina1 decree in favour of the assignors was annulled and held that the assignees cannoL claim ownership rights over the subject property, identihed as item No.234 under Schedule A'of preliminary decree in C.S. No.7/ 1958 which was excluded in the preliminary decree itseif. Further the report dated 06.O7.2023 submitted by the Receiver-cum- Commissioners in C.S. No.7/ 1958, the judgment dated 24.O3.2023 in Second Appeai No.1118/ 1999 (remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) and the counter affidavit dated 09.08.2018 irr W.P. No. 1898312018 by respondents 1 and 2 clearlv clarifies that the 'i i -- ' /.i ,/ 9 rrtc,i&wsti,J .i l' lio 15q56 ot2023 subject property rs under the superintendence of Court of Wards belongs to larc) Stl cd Akbar Hussaini, not released till ciate.

72. On behalf of the respondents no counter affidavit ha_. been filed.

13. At this jtrtrr;ture, it is significant to note that the Dirzrsion Bench of this Court had closed the C.S. No.7 of 195g on ()9.01.2025. it is necessarl. to extract the relevant paras No.3g, 39 anrl 40, which reads as under: "38. learned counsel for the frna.l decree hold:r's in Appl.No.S19 of 2OO9 has hled Adrlitional Material Papers wherein a copv of the orde: of Commissioner of Survey Settlement _ Inarrr relcasing Maktha lands dated 30.12.7g77 u,as enclosed. However, no document has been hlerl to the extent of release order pertaining to the lands in Schedule A, item Nos.23O to 254 menl ioned rn the preliminary decree. ,{t this junct u re, it is necessary to verify the list in A, ScheCule of the preliminary decree. In the pre..irninary decree dated O6.04. 1959, list of Mal<tas (under appea,l with Revenue Board) are menticrned which are as follows:

230. Maktah Bahadur A1i 231. Maktah Ootapalli 232. Maktah Shivarampalli 233. Maktah Balapoor 234. Maktah Raidurg 1235. Maktah Sough Bowli 236. Maktah Somajiguda :237. Maktah Nawab (Sahah) 1238. Maktah Mama Hamukunta :139. Maktah Bagh Kakgud 10 I{AC,J&NVSK,J w.P. No.1sgs6 ot 2023

240. Maktah Hajialigud

241. Maktah Permit Shah Guda

242. Maktah Muzhar Guda

243. Maktah Bagh Mecca ahmoo

244. Maktah Amjad Nagar

245. Maktah Mohammed Nagar

246. Maktah Salgr Guda

247. Maktah Ali Sahab

244. Maktah Chitaguda

249. Maktah Yellakur

250. Maktah Yerwagua

257. Maktah Ko1 Bowli Maktah Shamshiguda zcJ. Maktah Rai Samand E

254. Maktah Roshan Bowli

39. It is also striking to note that though the orders were passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlement - Inam on 30.12.1,977, the so called release of Makta lands was brought to the notice of this Court for the hrst time during the hearilg of applications frled for passing of fltna-l decree and delivery of possession of those lands which havc not been included rn item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule A' of preliminary decree. It is also pertinent to note that learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the objectors placed heary reliance on the said release order dated 30.12.1977. However, no proof of release of Makta lands pertaining to item Nos.23O to 254 is filed' It is also to be noted that when the order was passed way back in the year 1977, tl:-e concerned parties ought to have taken steps to include the extent of lalds released if aly, in item Nos.23O to 254 in Schedule A'of preliminary decree' *- The submissions in respect of such lands in item a.ti. ,.:, 11 ir.qc J&lr(,J lY ! No 1i956 ot2o23 Nos 230 to 254 were made at the time of hearing ob-iecdons to the report of receivcr cornnrissioner dated 06.OZ .2023.

40. As such, the submissions made orr beirelt of the objectors are unsustainable and ir. that view of the matter, it cal safely be conciuded thiit no lalds are available for pa_rtitiori in item Nos;.i2llO to 254 of Schedule A, attached to the plelirrinary decree. In the absence of preliminary dccre e for item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule A,, no linal decree could have been passed. Therefore, reports hled earlier are wtthout proper verification, ar-e fictitious and the sarte are treated as nullity ancl are hereby rejected. Accordingly point Nos. 1, 2 arLd ll are answered against the objectors.

14. From tl-re above, it is clear that the subject procertlz is at Sl.No.234 Makthit Raidurg in Schedule A, of prelimrnary dr:r;ree dated 06.04. 1959, which is not released in favour of the partics in C.S. No.7 of 1958 and is nr;l available for partition. it is to be not<:cl that the pctitioners herern a.re not the parties in C.S. No.7 o1. 195g proceedings. Further, no docurrents have been filed to the extent of relcase order pertaining to the. iand in respect of Item Nos.23o to 254 Sr:l_redure A, mentioned in the preliminary decree. Since the parties are pursuing the subject r:rzrttr:r u,ith the respondent No. 1, at this stage, no mandamus can be issued as prayed for in the present wr.it petition and the petitioners may seek appropriate remedy as available under 1aw - '-ry .',,1 I LZ W P No 15956 oI2O23

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequei, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha11 stand closed To, D/.A.V.S. PRASAD ANT REGISTRAR S S .AS ,,TRUE COPY// crtou orrtceR 'H::ilflf i:,jj:iflff fl {l[ftit[fi llH['i!,l*ss"fi]aoo'o' , The Principal Secretary' Revenue Department' Secretariat' State of - Telangana, HYderaoao :3:l'Br[i:lb:l']:H'il1rs"?ilffi 13fl 3?" 'E?ft',i;gi,i31"-",:,,,E,ryffi 4. One CC to SRI H RAJESH KUMAR' Advocate tOPUCl C TWO CCS tO ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL' High COUTT fOT thc StAtE Of . ;; ;;t;"'op ron REVENUE' Hish court for the state of relansana' Telangana [OU I 1 touTl

7. Two CD CoPies BSK BS w HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.15956 of 2023 i..: ..t 2',i nAB nn f 't .{' f :l: i n,", -; r- q (-11 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\