Beside Rahamaniya Masjid, Amedhpura Colony, Nizamabad. (T.S.) v. Ethape
Case Details
Ethape( 1 ) WP-2167-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2167 OF 2023 1] Syed Husnuddin @ Syed Iqbal (Died Thr. Lr.s)1-A] Afsha Begum W/o. Late Syed Husnuddin Age-77 years, Occu. Household.1-B] Syed Afsar S/o. Late Syed Husnuddin Age-51 years, Occu.- Business.1-C] Azeema Begum W/o. Mohd. Farhath Khan Age-38 Years, Occu.- Household.All R/o. House No.18-7-198/B/57,Talab Katta, Hyderabad.1-D] Nasreen Begum W/o. Mohd. HussianAge-52 Years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. House No. 5-6-634/7,Nampally, Hyderabad. 1-E] Nasem Begum W/o. Mohd. AsifAge-46 Years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. House No.18-7-25/441/BTalab Katta, Hyderabad.1-F] Faheem Begum W/o. Mohd. HammedAge-38 Years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. House No. 11-1-1204/1/55,Nampally, Hyderabad. 1-G] Naeem Begum W/o. Mohd. YousufAge-39 Years, Occu- Household
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 10 ) WP-2167-2023lying in the account No.461.14.Merely because, the party has not claim the amount since long, isno reason for the Government to withhold the amount. In the presentcase, there is no dispute about the entitlement and that the amount islying in the account. Though objection was raised by Sayyed ShahNurul Hasan Kadri Shutari, he could not prove that he is entitled toreceive the amount. Once he failed to prove his entitlement, the amountnaturally should go to the person/persons, who are entitled to receivethe said amount. In the present case, it is shown that the petitioners areentitled to receive the amount. It is not the case that the pension is to bepaid, even now, the pension is not continued, the question is only aboutthe amount which is already deposited.15.Considering the above submissions and the facts, this Court findsthat a case is made out to allow the writ petition. Hence, the followingorder: ORDER(i)Writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
Arguments
Ethape( 2 ) WP-2167-2023R/o. House No.2-3-647/A/145,Amberpet, Hyderabad. 1-H] Enayat Begum W/o. Mohd. Azeem AhmedAge-41 years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. House No.22-4-57 Kotla Ali Jah,Hyderabad.1-I]Sameena Begum W/o. Syed HusnuddinAge-33 Years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. House No.18-7-198/B/57,Talab Katta, Hyderabad.2]Syed Ameeruddin S/o. Syed BasheeruddinAge-64 Years, Occu- Business,R/o. House No. 18-11-80/C,Barkas, Hyderabad.3]Smt. Tahera Begum D/o. Syed Basheeruddin Age-70 Years, Occu- HouseholdR/o. As above.4]Syed Ruknuddin S/o. Syed Basheeruddin Age-59 Years, Occu- Business,R/o. As above.All through GPA Shaikh Mehmood S/o. Late Abdul GaniAge-46 years, Occu. BusinessR/o. 9-12-101, Beside Rahamaniya Masjid, Amedhpura Colony, Nizamabad. (T.S.). ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Ethape( 3 ) WP-2167-20231]The State of MaharashtraThrough Revenue Department,Mantralaya, Mumbaithrough the Secretary. 2]The Additional Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.3]The Sub Divisional Officer, Partur,Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.4]The Sub Divisional Officer, Pathri,Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani.5]The Tahsildar, Pathri,Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani.6]The Tahsildar, Partur,Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna....RESPONDENTSMr. A. S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 - State. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:08th APRIL 2025.PRONOUNCED ON:29th APRIL 2025.ORDER :-1.Heard Mr. Gandhi, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners andMr. Jadhavar, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 - State. Ethape( 4 ) WP-2167-20232.By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposalat the stage of admission.3. A challenge in this petition is to an order dated 30th November2022 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner-1,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in File No.2022/Appeal/Inam/CR-146, thereby refusing to grant the amount of pension to the petitioners.The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the State authorities.4.The petitioners, descendants of Syed Shah Gulam Ahmed Gilani,have approached this Court for getting amount of pension that is alreadylying with the Government as “Jagir Pension”.5.The facts, in short, are that one Syed Shah Gulam Ahmed Gilaniwas Jahagirdar in Mustaid Pura Hydrabad known as “Khan-Kh-E-Jilani”.Being service Inamdar, he was granted Jahagir of village Niwali, Tq.Pathri Dist. Parbhani and village Fularwadi Tq. Partur Dist. Jalna byorder dated 1st Ramzan 1255 Hijri. The succession certificate was issuedin the name of Syed Shah Gesu-Daraz Hussaini @ Khaja Miya S/o. Syed Ethape( 5 ) WP-2167-2023Shah Gulam Samdani and Syed Shah Ahmed Hussani S/o. Syed ShahGulam Jeelani Mohammed Yahya Al-Hussani. Being successors, theincome from the said village was shown in their names. After them, thesuccession was granted in the name of one, (i) Quadri (ii) Syed ShahAbdul (iii) Syed Shah Ziauddin (iv) Syed Hussainuddin (v) SyedAhmeduddin (vi) Quadri Begum. After Quadri Begum, succession wasgranted in the name of Basheeruddin. Income of two villages, afterdeath of Quadri Begum, was to go to Basheeruddin, who was succeededby (i) Husnuddin (ii) Ameeroddin (iii) Tahira Begum (iv) Ruknuddin.The then Government of Hyderabad State was granting pension to thesuccessors towards pension. Installment of pension were to be given forthe years 1950-51 to 1953-54 in respect of Jagir pension to thepredecessor in title of the petitioners. 6.In 1956, in view of Government Reorganization Act, both thevillages came to be included in the State of Maharashtra. The State ofHyderabad issued a circular dated 14th September 1949 and transferredthe Jagirs under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation 1358 Ethape( 6 ) WP-2167-2023Fasli. The Jagir of the predecessor of the petitioners were also includedin the said circular. 7.After reorganization of the State, the Hyderabad State transferredthe amount to the account of State of Maharashtra. The AccountantGeneral, Maharashtra State, Nagpur acknowledged the payment of sumof the Jagir by specific Commutations.8.Now, it is the case of the petitioners that after the amount istransferred to the State of Maharashtra. The successors of the originalJagirs were entitled to receive the said amount. By communication dated31st March 1958, the Accountant General approved the payment ofpension granted through the learned Commissioner, Aurangabad. Thelearned Commissioner, Aurangabad informed to Revenue Department tomake the payment to the concerned persons through him. The amountof Jagir of these two villages was kept in account No.641 (KhataNo.641). Ethape( 7 ) WP-2167-20239.The petitioners, being successors, obtained succession certificate.After obtaining succession certificate, they made an ApplicationNo.1993/Atiyat/Kavi-22. The said application was allowed by orderdated 25th August 2014. The petitioners were, thus, entitled to receivethe amount. However, one Sayyed Shah Nurul Hasan Kadri Shutari filedan objection in respect of succession of the petitioners by challenging theorder dated 25th August 2014 before the learned Additional Collector,Parbhani. The said objection application came to be rejected by orderdated 30th March 2016. Though the said Sayyed Shah Nurul Hasan KadriShutari could not get the certificate, he still filed an application with thelearned Commissioner, Aurangabad for getting pension from Khata No.461. It is on that, the petitioners approached the learned Commissionerfiling objection. 10.The proceeding was decided. The parties were required to come tothis Court. This Court in Writ Petition No.7200 of 2018, remanded thematter back to the Commissioner for fresh decision. The learnedCommissioner, by way of impugned order, rejected the application of the Ethape( 8 ) WP-2167-2023Sayyed Shah Nurul Hasan Kadri Shutari, held that he is not entitled toreceive the amount. However, at the same time, he did not grant theamount of pension even to the present petitioners. The petitioners arethus before this Court. 11.Mr. Gandhi, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, vehementlyargued that, there is no dispute about the pension amount is lying inaccount No.461. The said amount is to be paid to the person/personsentitled to receive the said amount. It is only because of the objectionby Sayyed Shah Nurul Hasan Kadri Shutari, the amount was not paid tothese petitioners on technical ground. That after the application forreceiving pension came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner,Aurangabad, the said order was not challenged. Even these petitionershave not made any prayer and held that the amount need not bedisbursed. Now, there is virasat granted in favour of the petitioner andthe amount ought to have been granted to them. He thus prays forallowing the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugnedorder. Ethape( 9 ) WP-2167-202312.Mr. Jadhavar, the learned AGP supports the impugned order. Hesubmits that the petitioners could not prove their case before learnedCommissioner. The learned Commissioner has rightly observed that after1956, there is no pension paid to anybody and no any claim is made bythe petitioners. He thus submits that the petition deserves to bedismissed. 13.After going through the submissions and the judgment and order,it is seen that, there is no dispute that the Jagir was given to Syed ShahGulam Samdani. Then, the Government of Hyderabad had kept theamount in the account. After reorganization of States, the amount wastransferred to the account of State of Maharashtra. From the factnarrated above, it is clear that, there was communication to give theamount to a person/persons entitled to receive the amount. The amountcould not be paid only because there was no virasat granted in favour ofanyone. Now, it is clear that, the petitioners have obtained virasat and,therefore, they are entitled to receive the amount. The claim of thepetitioners is limited only to the amount which is already deposited and
Decision
Ethape( 11 ) WP-2167-2023(ii)The impugned judgment and order dated 30th November 2022 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner-1 in FileNo.2022/Appeal/Inam/CR-146, are quashed and set aside. (iii)With this, Writ Petition stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]