SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 777

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
B. Ravi Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.8292, 25859 and 33645 of 2021
Decided On : 20-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bokaro Sapna Reddy.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 300-A - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Land - Sale Deed – Possession - Whether land, which is not in possession of declarants, can be computed to his or her holding – Held, Learned counsel has also drawn attention of Court to printed panchanamas where under respondents claimed to have taken over possession of subject land - As it is observed in preceding paragraphs that subject land should not have been computed to holding of declarants, all subsequent proceedings - Contention of learned Special Government Pleader is without any merit for following reasons - First of all, when land is not in possession of declarants, question of such lands being computed to their holding would not arise - Act of declarants requesting authorities to takeover these lands by treating them surplus is nothing but absurd - As a matter of fact, subject lands which were admittedly not in possession should have been deleted from holding of declarants while determining their surplus holding - Writ petitions are allowed

ORDER :

As the subject matter of the writ petitions is common and the issues involved therein are also common, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. WP.Nos.8292 and 25859 of 2021 are filed seeking to set aside the proposal of the respondent No.5 (District Collector, Hyderabad) in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 25.02.2021 forwarded to the respondent No.1 for according permission to alienate the premises of the petitioners i.e. H.Nos.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, to an extent of 1287 sq. meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad, in favour of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Committee (TSERC) and trying to take forcible possession of land of the petitioners forming part of “Amaravathi Theatre” as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India claiming it to be surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

3. W.P.No.33645 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners in WP.No.8292 of 2021 seeking to set aside the proceedings in Ref.No.579/Prl.SCM/2021 dated 30.11.2021 of the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to hand over advance possession to the respondent No.5 the additional land to an extent of 500 to 600 sq. meters in T.S.No.7 Block-L, Ward 83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad and proposal for formal allotment by the Government along with proceedings of the respondent No.7 in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/20202 dated 19.03.2021 and Lr.No.REV/E5 /0012/2020 dated 31.05.2021 written to the respondent No.4 allotting land in favour of the respondent No.12 (TSERC) as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

4. The facts in W.P.No.8292 of 2021, which is a lead case, are set out in brief as under:

    (a) The house bearing Nos.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1 situated at Khairatabad, Hyderabad (schedule property) originally belonged to one Miss Olive Ogilvi and Miss Sybil Ogilvi, which comprised of a big house along with appurtenant land. The total building and the appurtenant land was in more than 1 acre of land. The original owners sold the schedule property to one Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum, W/o. Khaja Mohd. Fasiuddin Khan vide sale deed bearing document No.637 registered in SRO Balda, dated 26th Azar 1337 Falsi (1927). Since then, Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum was in exclusive possession of the schedule property. The house which had more than 200 rooms, was a palatial house and it was popularly known as ‘Maman Bungalow’. It had outhouses, servant quarters, front and back houses which were surrounded by a compound wall to an extent o 2630.30 sq. meters + 2313.34 sq. meters = 4943.64 sq. meters.

(b) Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum gifted her property by way of Hiba-bill-qabz on 01.03.1957 and thereafter, recorded the same in her Memorandum of Gift Deed dated 12.04.1957 stating that 1. Vicarunissa Begum, 2. Iqbalunissa, 3. Zamelunissa, 4. Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, 5. Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and 6. Syed Khaja Afzaluddin have equal shares in all part and parcel of the house and appurtenant land. In the said deed it was clearly mentioned that some land was leased out to M/s Burma Shell Company and site which was leased out M/s Caltex in which the donees 4 to 6 alone have equal shares. The schedule property was divided into two portions i.e. land into 2670.30 sq. meters and 2313.30 sq. meters to facilitate purchased of the same by two sets of families as such 1st part consisting of 2670.30 sq. meters was purchased by G. Laxmamma, W/o. Gandiah and 9 others through registered sale deed with document No.792 of 1978 dated 20.03.1978 from Smt. Vicarunissa Begum @ Chote Mem Saab and five others for a valid sale considered. The sale deeds were executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 29.08.1976 for valid consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- respective

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top