IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
Mrs. Shalini Saincher And Another - Appellant
Vs.
Sayeeda Abood And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.45203 of 2022, 14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025
Decided On : 17-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ petitions and their claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 19) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments and claims based on historical ownership. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondents' defenses and counterarguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court's analysis on jurisdiction and nature of proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 32) |
| 5. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 34 , 35) |
ORDER :
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
The issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.45203 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-Smt. Shalini Saincher and another, seeking following relief :
“…issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the A) ULC Proceedings in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dt.22-6-1982 and 11-09-1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.E/8948/76 proceeding Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dt.27-4-1980, B) Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1937 of 1980 dt.06-10-1980 and Doc.6451/1982 dt.07.09.1982 and quash the same as they are illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, fraudulent, without Jurisdiction and Null & Void, made in violation of the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the REGISTRATION ACT 1908, in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India with a consequential prayer to declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dt.08-07-2021 as null and void and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case…”
3. W.P.No.14737 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the ULC proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dated: 27.04.1980 in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated:22-06-1982 and 11-09- 1982, С.С.No.E/6384/76, CC No. E/8948/76 issued by the respondent No.2 to 5 as illegal, void, ultra virus and unconstitutional and consequently declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dated: 08-07-2021 as null and void in the interest of justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..”
4. W.P.No.5348 of 2025 is filed is filed by the petitioners- Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.10 issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity...”
5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.45203 of 2022.
6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petitions are stated as under:
7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 that Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad, was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 (correlated to Revision Sy.No.225), situated at Shaikpet Village, presently falling within Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is stated that the subject land was originally recorded in revenue records as Jubilee Hills Gyra Jirayatti Patta. The entire Shaikpet Village was an ex-Sarf-e-Khas village and vested with the-then Hyderabad Government upon the merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 AD). It is further stated that original Sethwar was prepared in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) after revenue survey, wherein the land admeasuring Ac.3220.02 guntas in Sy.No.129 is classified as Government land. A Supplementary Sethwar of 1331 Fasli (1921 AD) was issued in favour of one Moinuddin Hassan, sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into 10 parts, and Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Tattikahana, while Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were
Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin vs. Syed Shal Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri
State of Gujarat and others vs. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel and others
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kumar and Ors
Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others
A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others
Joseph Severance and others vs. Benny Mathew and others
Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat
Ritesh Tewari vs. State of UP.
Hafeeza Bibi and others vs Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs. and others
Union of India vs. Ibraheem Uddin and another
State of Orissa vs. Fakir Charan Sethi
Madhukar Sadba Shivarkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others
State of UP vs. Adarsh Sevs Samithi
Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through L.Rs. and others
The Competent Authority, Calcutta vs. David Mantosh and others
Saurav Jain and another vs. A.B.P. Design and another
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ghisilal
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others
Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thmarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese
Mohan Pandey & another vs. Usha Rani & others
State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal
Bina Murlidhar Hemdev vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import & Export Co.
Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. vs. Sukamani Das
Dilboo (Dead) By LRS and others vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and others
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana
Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez & others
Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs and others
Narasamma and others vs. State of Karnataka and others
Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs. Collector, Hyderabad
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.