'l Syeda Aouj Fatima v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarrng the action of Respondents for not considering representation given to the respondents on 15-05-2025 and after that the petitioners also made an reminder notice to the respondents authorities on w _l 16-06-2025 for Uploading of Petitioners name in Bhu Bharati Portal in issuing of Digital Pattedar Pass Book and implementing the name of Petitioner in the revenue records in Sy. No.7'111 , admeasuring Ac. 72.00 gts situated at Sahebnagar Kalan(V), Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct the Respondents to declare the Petitioners as Legal Heirs in respect of the above said property. 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 direct the Respondents to consider the representation given to the respondents on l5-05-2025 and after that the Petitioners also made a reminder notice to the Respondent authorities on 16-06-2025 uploading the Petitioner's name in Bhu Bharati Portal in issurng Digital Pattedar Pass Book and implementing the name of Petitioner in the revenue records in Sy. No.7111 , admeasuring Ac.72.00 gts., situated at Sahebnagar Kalan (V), Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17343 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying atfidavit, it is prayecl that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of Rcspondents lbr not considering representation given to the respondents on l5-05-2025 and after that the petitioners also made an reminder notice to the respondents authorities on 16-06-2025 for Uploading of Petitioners name in Bhu Bharati Portal in issuing of Digital Pattedar Pass Book and rmplementing the name of Petitioner in the revenuc records in 51'. No.71/1' admcasuring Ac. 72-O0gts., situated at Sahebuagar Kalan (V), [{a}atnagar {M), Ranga ReddY District ancl pass such other order or orders as thrs llon'ble CoLrrt ma,\ dcem fit and proper in circumstarlces of the case."

2. It is stated that petitioners are the legal heirs o[ Mir AIam Bahadur in respect of lands admeasuring Acs. 72.00 guntas in Survey No.71/ I, situated at Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Re ddy District (for short, 'the subject lands'). It is further stated that as per Section 1(7) of the Telangana Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli and as per Section 12 of the Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasti, the H.E.H. Nizam issued a Farman which is duly published in Jarida (Gazette) No.46 dated 15 Meher 1358 Fasli urde Regulation No.34 of 1358 Fasli under Section 3 of the said Regulation, the subject lands were kept under the custody of Superintendence of Court of Wards Act and since then, the subject lands are not released to the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have submitted a representation dated 15.05.2O25 to the respondents seeking to incorporate their names in the revenue records, upload in Bhu Bharati Portal and consequently issue digital pattadar passbooks in favour r\} \ 2 CVBR,. W.P.No.17343 of 2025 o1' the petitioncrs in respect of the subject lands, but til1 date the said rcpresentation h.rs not bcen considered by the respondcnts. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions made by lcarncd counsel for the petitioners and lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the responderrts and with their consent, this writ petit.ion is disposed of at the admission stagc.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for thc responderrts has placed o r-r rccord the written instructior-rs o[ the 4dr rospondent-Tahsrldar wherein it is stated that as per the revenue records of Sahebnagar Kalern Village i.e., pahani for the year 19Z5-26, the lands in Survey No.71 art sub divided into Tlll to Tt /3 and entries are recorded in the name of various persons as Lavoni patta and Gairan Sarkari. It is ftrrther stated t hat earlier onc Sri Syed Zahid Ali zrnd anothcr filed ropresentation to dcliver possession of the lands in Survey No.7i/I admeasuring to an cxtent of Acs. 149.32 gontas, situatcd at Sahebngar Kalan village a,(l mutatc their names in Revenue Records claiming that the Jagir Administrator released the property uide Lr.No.gog/CH dated

24.04.1954, said represenlation rvas disposed uide proc.No.B l42Ol2Ol8 on

25.O7.2OI8 rejecling thc claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved b1. the same, the w.P.No. i88o9 ot 2o18 was filed before this court ancl the said writ petition u'as dismissed b1, this CourL uide ordcr o8.04.2o24. lL is llrther stated thar as per the basic rccords, the subject lands are ctassificd as Gairan serrkar.i, 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.17343 of 2025 as such included in the Prohibitary Register under Section 22-A(l\(al of the Registration Act, 19O8 and prohibited all transactions. [t is stated that time to time the Government issued guidelines on the subject lands and out of an extent of the land admeasuring Acs. 149.32 guntas in Survey No.71/ 1, land admeasuring Acs. 71.35 guntas u,as handed over to HUDA, land admeasuring Acs. 10.22 guntas was covered by Economically Weaker Section houses, Acs. 16.35 guntas is covered by Graveyard, Acs. O.16 guntas is covered under TSSPDCL, Acs. 36. 1O guntas is covered by Dargha and Hitl Rock area, Acs. 5.26 guntas is covered by roads and land admeasuring Acs. 8.O8 guntas is kept vacant for future public purpose. It is further stated that as per the revenue records and as well as ground possession, it clearly depicts that the petitioners'are claiming the land which is recorded as Governmcnt land, since inception, the nature of the lands r-rever recorded as Jagir lands and the entire land is utilized for thc public purposes. It is further stated that the petitioners, suppressing these facts, are making applications before the various authorities ancl alleging that the said applications have not been disposed of, the petitioners are approaching various forums including filing various writ petitions on the file of this Court, as such the present writ petition liled by the petitioners is misconceivecl and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The petitioners are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the said property. In view of the serious dispute with regard to right, titie, and possession of the subject \ 4 CVBR, - W.P.No.17343 of 2025 properq/, a writ pctition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve Lhe inter se disputes between the parlics, especially in the absence of cxamination of the documents relatrng to title and possession of thc respective parties. The questions as to v,ho is thc rightful owner of the lands in question; r,r,ho is in possession of thr: subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstan tes they claim lo be in possession; whethcr such possession can be regarded irs legal vis-a-r,is the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for co rsideration in this writ petition. In my vir:w, these are pure questions of fact. which c:in only be appropriately addressed by a civil courl in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the cvidcncc adduced by thc parties, and not Ln a writ petition filed ur-rder ArLicle 226 of the Constitution ol India. It has bt:cn consistently held by this Court and the Hon'ble . Supreme Court that a rcgular civil sui[ is the proper remedy for the adjudication of d sputes rclating to property rights.

6. In Mohan Pandeg vs. Ushq Rani Rajgarial the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follou,s: "6: xxxx..... It has repcaledly been hetd b],this Courl as also by various l{igh Courts that rL regular suit is the appropriate remedy lor settlement of disputes relating to property rights betwccn private persons and that the remedv under ArLicIe 226 oI the Constitutron shall not be available except where viotation of some statutorv duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court rvill issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grir'var-rce of the respondcnt is against tlte initiation of criminal proccedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thercon, she must avail of the remedl r nder the general larv including the Criminal Procedure Code. The Hieh Court cannot allow th to be used for d cidin n itutional iurisdicti '1t9ez; + scc ot 5 CVBR, J W.P.No.17343 of 2O25 disoutes. for which remedies. under the general [aw, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to reolace the ordinary remedies by wav of a suit or aDDlicati on available to a litieant- The iurisdiction is special and extraordinary and qhould not bc exercised casuallv or lightlv." (emphasis supplied)

7. In Dwarka Prqsad Agarwal a. B.D. Agarua.f2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows "The High Court whrle exercising a power oijudicial review is concerned with illegality, irratronalit,t, and procedural impropriety of an order passed b1, the State or a statutory authority. Reraedy uncler Article 226 of thc Constitution of lndia cannot be invoked for resolution of a prrvate law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also $,ell-settled that a writ remcdy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."

8. It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and posscssion o[ the parties in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the flrst instance.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, since it is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the subject lands, but the lands admeasuring Acs. 149.32 guntas in Survey No.71 / I are covered by various authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are '1zoo3; o scc 230 6 CVBR,: W.P.No.17343 of 2025 relegated to ayrproach the competent Civil Court by instituting a comprehensive <'ivii suit claiming rights over tl're subject lands, in accordance with law.

10. Accoldingly, this Writ PeLition is disposecl of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaner,us applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ri ' j:, To, secribk- orrrcen 1 Ihq Princip-al Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building Hyderabad, State of Telangana

2. The District Coltector, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Re-venue Divisionar officer, rbrahimpatnam At rbrahimpatnam Division Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Tahsildar, lrayatnagar MandarAt Hayatnagar Ranga Reddy District 5. One CC to SRt SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to Gt, FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU!

7. Two CD Copies BSR BS -',>J. HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.17343 of 2025 o t t .t I Tt+E-S A 1 6 ,tljt 2tr6 z. I) J ' ' t' J\-1 -'/i' '- -- ':-:-" ' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS $ q 10 \[