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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1113


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
 
Raunaq Yar Khan – Petitioner 
Versus
State of Telangana and others – Respondents 
WP No.28635 of 2018 and Batch
Decided On : 28-10-2024 

Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.

Headnote:(A) A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F - Section 87 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Constitution of India - Article 300A - Dispute over property titled ancestral - Petitioners sought declaration of their ownership and title against government interference. The court found that the impugned proceedings by state authorities violated natural justice, as they were issued without notice despite ongoing litigation and directed status quo be maintained. The court held that possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law. (Paras 1-100)

(B) Legal Principles - Ownership versus Possession - The right to property is a constitutional right and cannot be taken away without legal authority. Variations in recorded property rights necessitate strict adherence to due process. The statutory requirements under Section 87 of the A.P. Land Revenue Act must be maintained, specifically concerning corrections and admissions among parties. (Paras 9, 12, 49, 87)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are descendants of historical landholders contending ownership of disputed land, claimed ancestral since long before governmental interventions began over 50 years ago. The state’s interference prompted the petitioners to seek legal redress against the ongoing damage to their property and wrongful dispossession. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found significant procedural lapses and violations of due process by the state in interfering with the petitioners' possession. It underscored that possession cannot be severed without lawful measures and reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory provisions around land record management. (Paras 9-100)

Issues: The main issues were whether the impugned orders were lawful and whether property could be taken without adhering to procedural safeguards. Also, the recognition of possession rights irrespective of administrative failures in recording ownership needed clarification. (Paras 1-100)

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reinforced that the right to property is a human right safeguarded by the Constitution, emphasizing that unfair dispossession is impermissible. The authorities must comply with applicable laws regarding land tenure and record corrections, particularly under Section 87 of the Revenue Act to avoid prejudice against rightful possessors. (Para 100)

Result: All petitions were allowed. Impugned proceedings were set aside, reaffirming the petitioners' right to their property and ordering the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' possession. (Para 100)

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

The lis involved in all the four writ petitions and subject property is common and therefore they were heard together and decided by way of this common order.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.28635 of 2018; Mr. Omar A. Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.40374 of 2022, Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners in both W.P.No.38277 of 2022 and W.P.No.2151 of 2022 and Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for unofficial respondents 15 to 57 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, extensively.

3. DETAILS OF THE WRIT PETITIONS AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT:-

A) W.P. No. 28635 OF 2018: –

This writ petition is filed by Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan to declare the action of respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession over the property admeasuring Ac.73-39 guntas in Sy.No.63 situated at Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) damaging the same by erecting the board with the caption “Government Land” as illegal.

B) W.P. No. 38277 of 2022:-

This writ petition is filed by Mr.Bukthyar Khan and two others to declare the action of Respondent No.5/District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in passing the impugned proceedings dated 10.08.2022 in file No.E1/1042/2022 recommending Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps for carrying out amendments of entries by de-notifying the Prohibitory List under Section 22A of the Stamps and Registration Act, concerning lands in Sy.No.63/2 (old Sy.No.13) to an extent of Ac. 52-00 guntas located in Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, including the MEMO No.8077/2022 dated 19.08.2022 as illegal.

C) W.P.No.40374 of 2022:-

This writ petition is filed by Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan to declare the proceedings of Respondent No.5/District Collector Ranga Reddy District dated 08.08.2022, in File No. A3/84/2022, all consequential proceedings and papers issued by him as illegal.

D) W.P.No. 2151 of 2023:-

This writ petition is filed by Mr. Bukthyar Khan to declare the action of Respondent No.4/Commissioner and Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SSLR) in passing impugned proceedings in File No.F1/1171/2022 dated 30.07.2022, consequential proceedings dated 08.08.2022 of Respondent No.5 District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, proceedings in File No. A3/84/2022 of respondent No.9/Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (S&LR), Ranga Reddy District, as illegal.

4. Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan filed two Writ Petitions i.e W.P.No.28635 of 2018 and 40374 of 2022 seeking the above stated reliefs. Mr.Bukthyar Khan and two others filed two Writ Petitions i.e W.P.No.38277 of 2022 and 2151 of 2023. Mr. Bukthyar Khan and Mr. Raunaq Yar Khan are own brothers and Smt. Nasrath Yar Khan W/o Nadir Yar Khan and Smt. Iffath Ali Khan W/o Hasan Ali Khan are their sisters.

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-

A) W.P.No.28635 of 2018:-

i) They are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring an area of Ac.78-37 guntas in Survey No.63 located in Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

ii) He is the direct descendant of the family of Paigahs and the HH Nizam, the VI of Hyderabad and also related to HEH, the Nizam of Hyderabad. His late great great grandfather Sir Vikar ul Umra was a paigah, a noble associate of the Nizams of the Hyderabad. He was also the Prime Minister of the then Nizam State. His great great grandmother Smt. Jahandar-unnisa Begum gifted the entire land to the government which is now the Hyderabad Public School, the then Jagirdar College. They own vast lands, palaces, Dewdi, Bungalows and lands in and around Hyderabad as well as Maharashtra and Saudi Arabia. His Great great grandfather Sir Vikal ul Umra gifted the Falaknuma Palace to Late Nizam VI.

iii) Considering the said facts and their position in the society, there was absolutely no nee

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