IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL rd ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 16072 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. NAEEM UR RAHIM KHAN S/O SAIYED UR RAHIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O BAHAR MANJIL AHMEDABAD PALACE ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT SHAHARYAR SULTAN W/O LATE SAIYED UR RAHIM KHAN OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE,THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAEEM UR RAHIM KHAN S/O SAIYED RAHIM KHAN R/O BAHAR MANJIL TRAIL BLAZER SCHOOL GATE NO.1 SAFIA COLLEGE AHMEDABAD PALACE ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI RAMGULAM MAHAJAN - ADVOCATE )

AND SMT. AYESHA SULTAN D/O LATE SAIYED UR RAHIM KHAN W/O SHRI AZAM HASSAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O RIYAZ MANJIL KHANUGAON, VIP ROAD, BHOPAL THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI ASHRAD HASSAN KHAN S/O AZAM HASSAN KHAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY MOHD. ADIL USMANI - ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Addl. Collector, Bhopal (North), District Bhopal in case No.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH

0012/Nigrani/2022-23 on the ground that on an application moved by Smt. Ayesha Sultan D/o Late Said Ur Rahim Khan an application was filed after a lapse of more than 20 years challenging the gift deed made by father of the petitioner namely contentious S/o Diwan Aziz Ur Rahim on 25.10.1999 at Bhopal as contained in Annexure P-2.

It is submitted that firstly the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nuzul Sant Hridaram Nagar (Bairagarh) Vrit Bhopal vide order dated 13.03.2023 admitted the appeal on the ground that it raises contentious issues and when this order was put to challenge before the Addl. Collector, he too has dismissed the appeal on the ground that order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is maintainable.

It is submitted that gift deed was executed in the year, 1999 and all the three ingredients of the gift as contained in para 149 of the Principles of Mohamdan Law are fulfilled. Yet, without adverting to this aspect that there is a valid gift in favour of the petitioner and that could not have been challenged for more than 20 years, impugned orders have been passed.

Mohd. Adil Usmani, learned counsel for respondent submits that he has filed the copy of the orders passed by the competent authority under the Urban Ceiling Act on 30.05.1983. It is evident that the land in question measuring 67470 Sq. ft. was treated to be in the share of three persons namely Smt. Shaukat Jahan, Saeed Saiyad Ur Rahim and Smt. Kishwar Jahan, therefore, petitioners' father Saeed Saiyad Ur Rahim Khan was not capable of gifting

67470 sq. ft. of land in favour of the petitioner.

Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, though draws attention of this Court towards order dated 21.04.2000 passed by the Assistant Settlement officer, Bairagarh in Revenue Case No. 32/A-6/1999-2000 to point out that in fact Diwan Aziz Ur Rahim Khan had received 103650 Sq. ft of land Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH contained in Survey No. 48 vide registered gift deed dated 17.05.1958.

After death of Diwan Aziz Ur Rahim Khan, 67470 sq. ft. land came in the share of Shaukat Jahan Begum, Seed Ur Rahim Khan and Kishwar jahan Begum. Thereafter, it is mentioned that in the year, 1981 Kishwar Jahan Begum vide deed dated 08.09.1981 had relinquished the land which had come in her share with Saukat Jahan Begum. Therefore, it is pointed out that Kishwar Jahan's share had come in favour of Saukat Jahan Begum whose share on her death on 04.09.1985 came to Saeed Ur Rahman Khan who happens to be the son of Shaukat Jahan and after death of Shaukat Jahan Begum it came in the name of Saeed Ur Rahim Khan.

There are two preliminary objections raised vide Shri Mohd. Adil Usmani namely after death of Shaukat Jahan all of her property will not be vested with her son Saeed Ur Rahim Khan but as per Muslim Law share will