2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 12367

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL Nos.933 AND 979 OF 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. K. R. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board for appellant in both the writ appeals. Mr. Y. Chandra Sekhar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. P. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the writ appeals.

Mr. T. Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in both the writ appeals.

2. These intra court appeals are filed challenging the order, dated 09.08.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.6890 and 6909 of 2012. Since the issue involved is common in both the Writ Appeals, they are heard together and a common judgment is being passed.

3. Brief facts:

Dispute in these writ appeals pertains to land in Survey No.285 (old) admeasuring an extent of Ac.21.04 guntas and the same is not controverted. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 represented by their General Power of Attorney claim that they are grandchildren of Khaja Jalal. It is averred that a Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 AD) was granted by Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land admeasuring Ac.204.22 guntas in old survey Nos.253, 285, 288 and 290 of Khanojiguda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further averred that subject land was under occupation of Khaja Jalal and was recorded as Pan Maqtha Inam lands, assessed for a revenue of Rs.744/- as per orders dated 1st Behman 1315 Fasli.

3.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 rely on certain revenue documents and claim that nature of land in old Sy.Nos.253 and 285 of Alwal Village as “Bapat Inam Maktha/Panmaktha Inam”. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 claim that revenue records depict that this land was assigned new Sy.Nos.357 to 372, 424 and 426 and that Khaja Jalal was in possession of property as Inamdar. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (for short ‘RDO’) issued Succession Certificate vide proceedings in Case No.A5/4342/58, dated 04.07.1962, allotted shares by granting succession certificate among the inamdars.

3.2 It is averred that as per survey conducted during 1351 Fasli (1941 AD), the land situated in Sy.No.285 (old) to an extent of Ac.167.22 gts was one compact block. A resurvey was conducted in 1358 Fasli (1948 AD) and old Sy.No.285 was divided into 17 parts; out of these 17 parts, 16 parts were assigned new survey numbers 357 to 372 for an extent of Ac.146.16 gts. A portion of old Sy.No.285 to an extent Ac.21.04 gts was not assigned any Survey Number.

3.3 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 aver that several representations were made to the authorities to conduct a survey of left over area in old Survey No.285 and assign a new survey number.

First of such representations was made on 23.04.2007 and later on 19.03.2008, 14.12.2009 and 29.08.2010. A writ petition, namely W.P.No.27506 of 2007 was filed by appellant herein claiming that appellant purchased Ac.28.29 guntas in 1939 from Nizam Government and an additional land of Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.285 and a direction was sought for survey and assignment of a new survey number. Writ Petition was disposed of on 12.11.2009 with a direction to conduct survey and assign a new survey number. Pursuant to the directions, a survey was conducted vide proceedings No.Rc.A1/1963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, by Assistant Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records and recommended for assignment of new survey No.606 for an extent of Ac.21.04 guntas to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records. The Commissioner issued proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, with certain observations. The said proceedings in Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, were challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.6909 of 2012. By common order, dated 09.08.2016, writ petition was allowed against which W.A.No.979 of 2016 is filed.

3.4 An application was filed by GPA holder of respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the Joint Collector (for short ‘JC’) for allotment of new survey number to the un-surveyed/left over/gap area in respect of old Sy.No.285 situated at Khanojiguda Village. The JC in pursuance of the Commissioner’s assessment and observations held that the land be treated as Government land, recording the land as ‘Poramboke’ under pattedar column and showing the entire extent as pote kharab by assigning new Sy.No.606 to an extent of Ac.21.04 gts in seriatim in village situated at Khanojiguda, H/o. Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with usual procedure. JC further directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to issue supplementary sethwar after obtaining permission from District Revenue Officer (for short ‘DRO’). This order of JC was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.6890 of 2012 and was allowed by learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.933 of 2016 is filed against the said order of learned Single Judge. 4. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that vide letter, dated 08.03.1937, appellant requested the Taluqdar of Bhagat District, Hyderabad Deccan, for acquisition of Ac.32.72 guntas situated between Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet for trenching purposes. It is further submitted that it was informed by letter, dated 06.07.1937, to the appellant that H.E.H. Nizam Government issued orders to place the land at the disposal of the appellant. It is also submitted that pursuant to a letter, dated 04.08.1937, it was agreed to handover the said extent of land on 18.08.1937.

4.1 It is contended that vide letter, dated 08.10.1937, the President of Cantonment Board addressed a letter to the Secretary to Hon’ble Resident, at Hyderabad to acquire a strip of land admeasuring Ac.0.39 guntas for an approach road to the trenching ground. It is further contended that vide letter, dated 29.07.1938, the President, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad intimated to the Secretary to the Hon’ble the Resident, at Hyderabad that a cheque for H.S. Rs.8003.13 (Hali Sicca Rupees) being the compensation for the land comprising Ac.28.29 guntas taken by Cantonment Authority for transmission to Taluqdar, Bhagath District, Hyderabad, same be acknowledged by a stamped receipt. It is also contended that vide letter, dated 17.07.1940, from Secretary to Hon’ble the Resident to the President, Cantonment Board, that compensation payable for additional land admeasuring 0.39 Acres (17 guntas) acquired by the Board was fixed at H.S. Rs.98.60 P. (Hali Sicca Rupees) and that a cheque be transmitted to H.E.H. Government.

4.2 It is submitted that a letter, dated 15.03.1995, was addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri (for short ‘MRO’) to the appellant that the trenching ground was demarcated by fixing boundaries and a sketch was prepared and was sent for necessary action. It is further submitted that a letter, dated 19.03.1998, was addressed by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board to the District Collector to assign a separate survey number and to mutate the name of the Board in revenue records. It is also submitted that a compound wall was constructed at a cost of Rs.18,35,000/- to the trenching ground on the basis of a resolution, dated 31.01.2002, of the Board and the property was being guarded by Army Jawans. It is submitted that a Writ Petition bearing No.12509 of 2004 was filed by retired Lieutenant Colonel, complaining pollution due to dumping of municipal waste and the Board was directed to curtail pollution. It is further submitted that a request was made to concerned authorities to dump the municipal garbage at Jawaharnagar Village and permission was accorded.

4.3 It is submitted that a suit bearing O.S.No.705 of 2006 was filed in the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and his brother for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellant and five others from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of a parcel of land in old Sy.No.285 and that the said suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land.

4.4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant filed writ petition No.27506 of 2007, that appellant purchased Ac.28.29 guntas in 1939 from Nizam Government and an additional land of Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.285 seeking a direction for survey and assignment of a new survey number and that the writ petition was disposed of on 12.11.2009. It is further submitted that pursuant to the directions of High Court, a report vide proceedings No.Rc.A1/1963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, was submitted by JC to Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records requesting for assigning new survey No.606 for an extent of Ac.21.04 guntas. It is also submitted that the Commissioner issued proceedings Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, with certain observations. It is contended that an application was made before the JC by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for allotment of new survey number to an extent of Ac.21.04 gts and the JC basing on the Commissioner’s assessment and observations held that the land be treated as Government land and directed Assistant Director Survey and Land Records to issue supplementary sethwar after obtaining permission from DRO.

4.5 It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant has no right to subject land. It is further submitted that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the documents filed by appellant are dubious is outside the purview of writ proceedings and that the prayer in the writ petitions do not seek adjudication of title. It is also submitted that the matter should have been remanded to civil Court. It is urged that the learned Single Judge has traversed beyond the scope of the prayer in the writ petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that a Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 AD) was granted by Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land admeasuring Ac.204.22 guntas in old survey Nos.253, 285, 288 and 290 of Khanojiguda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to Khaja Jalal and that the said land is in their possession. It is further submitted that a survey was conducted in 1940 and later a re-survey was conducted in the year 1948 and an extent of Ac.21.04 gts of land in Sy.No.285 was left un-surveyed. It is also submitted that representations were made for survey of the left over land in Sy.No.285 (old). It is submitted that as per sethwar of 1950, old Sy.No.285 corresponding to certain new survey numbers was an extent of Ac.167.20 gts of land and during survey settlement operation, old survey was correlated to 16 new survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.357 to 372 covering an extent of Ac.143.30 gts and that a deficit of Ac.23.30 gts. It is pointed out that pursuant to direction of High Court, a survey was conducted.

5.1 It is submitted that as per the statement in their affidavit, Cantonment Board claims that land is between Khanojiguda and Hasmathpet and not in Khanojiguda. It is further submitted that no conveyance deed of panchanama is placed on record and that there is no proposal for acquisition and no documents on record to show that there was any such proceedings for acquisition. It is also submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are legal heirs and that occupation rights certificates have been issued by the concerned authorities.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for impleaded respondents that they are the legal heirs, grand children of Khaja Abdullah (Brother of Khaja Meeran) by placing reliance on the Munthakhab granted. It is further submitted that once inam is granted, the question of acquisition proceedings doesn’t arise. It is also submitted that the land acquisition proceedings were in vogue and that there is no Section 4(1) notification issued with respect to the land being claimed by appellant. It is submitted that survey was conducted and the subject parcel of land of Ac.21.04 gts was left un-surveyed. It is lastly submitted that the impleaded respondents are lineal descendents of the Munthakhab holders and are rightful heirs.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

8. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are grandchildren of late Khaja Jalal. A Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) was granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land admeasuring Ac.204.22 gts in old Sy.Nos.253, 285, 288 and 290 of Khanojiguda, H/o.Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is pertinent to note that a copy of the Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad was not part of the record and it was presented to the Court only on the request of the Court, when the Court listed the matter under the caption “for further hearing”.

9. On a perusal of both the Munthakhab(s) submitted, it is imperative to note certain important facts. The relevant extracts of the Munthakhabs presented by both learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4and impleaded respondents are as follows:

“1) The following entries are reflected in the Munthakhab submitted by the respondent Nos.1 to 4:

At column no.2 File No. of the secretariat 3/11 of 1329 Fasli At column no.3 Muntakhab Tahasil No.1251 At column no.4 Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Khajajiguda, claimant Khaja Mia Khaja Ali Khaja Shareef Bawa Sahed Zafar Ali At column no.13 Pan Makhta land Inam as Khaja Jalal situated at Khanajiguda Siwar Alwal 2) The following entries are reflected in the Munthakhab submitted by the impleaded respondents:

At column No.2 Dept. of Secretary File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli At column No.3 No.1251 Mumtakhab of Secretariat At column No.4 Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Khanajiguda Khaja Miran Khaja Ali Khaja Shareef Yawer Sahed Jafar Ali At column No.13 Pan Makhta land known as Khaja Jalal situated at Nanajiguda, Siwar Alwal”

10. Be that as it may, in both the Munthakhabs, no survey number is mentioned in any of the columns. When a survey number is nowhere mentioned in the Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad, it defies logic as to how the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the impleaded respondents can claim the extent of land of Ac.21.04gts in Sy.No.285(old).

11. It is important to note that in column No.14 of both the Munthakhabs, the AREA/EXTENT is reflected as follows:

“Total Makhta land 104 Bighas, as reflected in the Munthakhab of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

104 Bighas Maqhta land, as reflected in the Munthakhab of impleaded respondents.

1 Bigha is equal to 0.62 Acre, 104 bighas would sum upto Acres 64.48 gts in total, approximately the total extent of land in the Munthakhab would be only to an extent of 65 acres and 8 guntas.”

Munthakhab submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4:

1	1	Serial No. of succession
File No. of the secretariat 3/11 of 1329 Fasli	2	No. of case preliminary & years
Muntakhab Tahasil No.1251	3	No. of execution date & year
1. Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Khajajiguda, claimant 2. Khaja Mia 3. Khaja Ali 4. Khaja Shareef 5. Bawa Sahed Zafar Ali	4	Nature of the person whose name maash issued is grant i.e., statement holder Father’s Residence
No succession statement prior to its has prepared and sanctioned	5	If any succession statements sanctioned prior to it, then the name of that person is where name sanction has been sanctioned one after the other father’s name and residence
Banu B1 W/o Khaja Mia R/o Khanajiguda	6	Name of the person whose name the succession is granted Father’s & Residence
Statement holder : Khaja Meera wife of demised person	7	Relation
Isfandar 1339 Fasli	8	Date of death of ancestor
Date of execution of proclamation 25th Bahaman 1341 Fasli	9	Date of execution of advertisement Huzuri claimant
2nd Dai 1341 Fasli		10 Date of appearance of successor
Khaja Meeran ancestor after demise appeared within three years	11	If any successor during the period of advertisement could not attend the reason of delay
Retired	12	The successors appeared in time
Pan Makhta land Inam as Khaja Jalal situated at Khanajiguda Siwar	13	Kind of Maash, Jagir Maqhta Inam daily

Alwal
Total Makhta land 104 Bighas	14	Area
Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only)	15	Assessment
-	16	Cash
Rs.1000/-	17	Total
181 - 14 - 0		18 Deduction of pan or Government share if found
818 – 2 - 0	19	The Balance is released
-	20	Conditions grant
-	21	-
-	22	-
-	23	-
Munthakhab submitted by Impleaded Respondents
1	1	Serial No. of succession
Dept. of Secretary File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli	2	No. of original suit with year
No.1251 Mumtakhab of Secretariat	3	File No. with date and
1. Khaja Osman S/o Khaja Ghouse R/o Nanajiguda 2. Khaja Miran 3. Khaja Ali 4. Khaja Shareef 5. Yawer Sahed Jafar Ali	4	Name of that person in whose name land is granted (i.e., holder of statement) with father’s name and residence
Prior to this no succession statement is either prepared or sanctioned	5	If succession statement has been sanctioned prior to this, then the name of said person is whose name one after succession is sanctioned, with father’s name and residence
Khaja Sharuddin and Khaja Hyder, resident of Nanjiguda	6	Name of such person whose name now succession is to be sanctioned, with Father’s name and Residence
They are statement holder late Khaja Ali’s brother’s sons	7	Relation with present person or past successor and further statement holder
	8
25 Behman year 1341 are successorts of Mqtha Nanajiguda comprehensively one citation is issued: compliance of publication/ citation, successors are included in file.	9	Date of compliance of publication and appearance of objectioner
31 Ardibehisht year 1341 F		10 Date of appearance of successor
-	11	If any successor does not appear within publication period then the reason of delay
It is released	12 Details of	this fact that land is seized or released, if seized then from which date it is seized and for

		what reasons
Pan Makhta land known as Khaja Jalal situated at Nanajiguda, Siwar Alwal	13	Kinds of land, jagir, maqtha, inam, rusum mahmul etc.
104 Bighas Maqhta land	14	Extent Land
1000/- One Thousand Rupees	15	Revenue Quantum
-	16	of land Cash
Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Rupees)	17	Total of column 15, 16
(Arabic figure)		18 Minus Pan (cess) or Govt. share, if decided to be in inam inquiry
(Arabic figure)	19	Remaining released
-	20	Condition of grant

12. It is the specific claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that they are the legal heirs of Khaja Jalal and Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) was granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad to Khaja Jalal. It is further their case that as per various revenue records, the land situated in Sy.No.285 (old), 253, 288 and 290 to an extent of Ac.204.22 gts of Khanojiguda, H/o. Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal is “panmaktha” land belonging to “Maktha Khaja Jalal” and Khaja Jalal was granted Munthakhab for the entire extent of land and they were in possession and enjoyment of the said land.

13. We fail to understand how the respondent Nos.1 to 4 claim an extent of Ac.204.22 gts of land in various survey numbers including that of Sy.No.285(old) when it is clearly evident from the Munthakhab that the area/extent of land granted is only 104 bighas which comes to an extent of only Ac.65.08 gts. Reliance is placed on the Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad as the source of the title for the entire extent of land by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the light of the entry in Munthakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of 1329 Fasli (1919 A.D.) granted by the Nizam, we are afraid the contention cannot be sustained. The claim cannot be made beyond what has been granted in the Munthakhab and has to be restricted to the extent indicated in the grant.

14. JC–II of Ranga Reddy district in proceedings No.Rc.A1/963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, submitted a report to Commissioner wherein he stated as follows:

“Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.27506/2006 dated 12-11-2009, the Tahsildar Malkajgiri Mandal vide Lr.No.B762/2009-dated 30-01-2010 has requested to demarcate the suitlLand and to assign new Survey Number. It is submitted that the former Inspector of Survey of this office has demarcated the subject land with the help of the relevant records of this office by using ETS instrument. He demarcated and picked up measurements for the un- surveyed left over / gap area and worked out the area as an extent of Ac.21-04 gts which is tallied to the ground. The former Assistant Director has also inspected the Land on 25-7-2008 and found that there is un-accounted and left over area which is a part and parcel of (old) Sy.No.285 of Alwal Village.

It is submitted that as per Sethwar for the year 1950 AD, the classification as per Col.No.(3) of above survey numbers is recorded as Panmaktha and as per Khatedar Col (4) the name of Sri.Khaja Jalal Sab is recorded.

It is submitted the Village map of 1358 Fasli of Alwal Village Malkajgiri Mandal is verified. As seen on the map there is un-surveyed/left over/gap area. This gap area is verified falling on the Village boundary in between Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal and Hashmathpet Village of Balanagar Mandal.

It is further submitted that I have inspected the land on

20-7-2010 along with the Cantonment Board related persons; Dy. Inspector of survey, Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, and the Tahsildar Malkajgiri Mandal were present. The said land has been protected by a compound wall and the board "Cantonment Land" is also shown. It is covered by debris, thick growth of shrub and dumped municipal waste. There are enough signs to show that the land had been used as a ground, for throwing debris. However there are multiple claims on the land, and several representations have been received.

It is further submitted that when both the Village maps i.e., Alwal for the year 1358 Fasli and Hashmathpet for the year 1328 Fasli are juxtaposed, it is seen that the Village boundary in between Alwal and Hashmathpet are tallying. There is left over/un-Surveyed area which is falling within the Village Boundary of Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal This un-surveyed area needs to be assigned a new survey number 606 i.e., the last survey number of the village of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

I am submitting herewith the following Xerox copy of records of Khanojiguda H/o Malkajgiri Mandal for kind perusal.

1) Copy of Sethwar for the year 1950 for the subject land Sy.Nos mentioned in para (2) above.

2) Copy of WassolBaqui for the year 1354 Fasli in respect of Khata No.2 of old Sy.No.285.

3) Copy of village map Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal for the year 1358 Fasli & Copy of old Map of 1351 Fasli (Reprint).

4) Copy of Village Map Hashmathper Village Balanagar Mandal for the year 1328 Fasli.

5) Sketch of old Sy.No.285 along with ETS measurements picked up by the former Inspector of Survey.

6) Spot inspection report dated 25-7-2008 of the former Assistant Director Survey & Land Records.

Therefore, I request the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records A.P Hyderabad to kindly accord permission for assigning new Survey Number 606 to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khanojiguda, H/o Alwall Village Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District and communicate the orders and necessary directions to act on this issue”.

15. Pursuant to proceedings in Rc.No.A1/963/2007, dated 07.08.2010, of JC-II addressed to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, AP Hyderabad, to accord permission for assigning New Sy.No.606 to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khanojiguda, H/o Alwal Village of Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and communicate the orders and necessary direction to act on the issue, the Commissioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.N1/5213/2010, dated 27.09.2010, forwarded reply to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy. In his proceedings, the commissioner stated as follows:

"Permission was sought for assigning new Sy.No. to an extent of Ac.21-04 gts to the left over gap area in Khannbjiguda H/o Alwal. The proposal has been carefully examined it is clearly evident from the enquiry report of the Joint Collector dated 7- 8-2010 that the subject matter extent of Ac 21-04 gts was left un-surveyed during the last survey in the year 1940 for the obvious reason that it did not form part of the holding of any khatedar at that time. As such, it cannot be related to holdings in the old Sy.No.285 which were recognized and correlated to 16 new survey numbers as mentioned in the Joint Collectors report based on the entries in Wasool baqui. What follows is that the subject matter land is an un-assessed waste land vested in Government, even if it were to be an Inam Village. There was no claim or objection from any quarter in this regard after re-survey for several decades, after the survey. An occupancy right, if any, arising from the Survey and Settlements done six decades back cannot be now enlarged to include a neighboring piece of un-surveyed land vested in Government. To sum up the subject matter land is to be necessarily treated as vested in the Government and the question of applicability of Sec.87 of the APTA (LR) Act, 1317Fasli does not arise in this case.

Subject to this clarity and the legal position you may take action as per the procedure to assign a new Survey number in seriatim in the Village in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The claims if any in respect of this land should be dealt with keeping in view of the about fact and legal position".

16. This proceedings of Commissioner, dated 27.09.2010, is the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6909 of 2012.

17. An application was filed by Khaja Ahmeduddin, S/o Khaja Abdulla & 3 others represented by their GPA Holder Sri Y. Yadav Rao, D.No.12-13-97, Tara Tycoon, Plot No.311, 3rd Floor, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-17, for allotment of new survey number to the un-surveyed/left over/gap area in respect of old Sy.No.285 situated at Khanojiguda, H/o Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said application, the petitioner submitted that ancestor namely Khaja Jalal Saheb was inducted into possession of the land covered by old Sy.Nos.285 of Khanojiguda, H/o Alwal Village by grant of Muntakhab No.1251 in File No.3/11 of F.1329. The Muntakhab was granted by the Nizam, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Committee Estate Hon'ble Raja Rayan Maharaja Sri Kishan Prasad Bahadur KCIE HEH the Nizam dated 30th Aban Fasli 1324. The total extent covered by the old Sy.No.285 is admeasuring Ac.167-20 gts. After the survey, the old Sy.No.285 was divided into several survey numbers. The new survey numbers assigned to old Sy.No.285 are Sy.Nos.372, 371, 370, 369, 368, 359, 367, 366, 358, 365, 360 and 361. As per the village accounts and revenue records, in the extents covered by new survey numbers, there is a difference of Ac.57-05 gts.

18. The JC in his order, dated 25.05.2011, held as follows:

“…The counsel for inamdar present. He argued the case. Sec. (14) of the inam Act has Civil Suit of declaratory nature. He argued that the inam issue with regard to Sy.Nos. 367 and 368 was dealt the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case to Joint Collector, who had passed the orders. He argued that the cantonment board in WP No. 17697/1989 the Chief Executive Officer of cantonment board claimed Sy.No.1 of Hashmathpet Village as their land. He further argued that he had applied for sketch and letter dated: 15-3-1995 of Mandal Revenue Officer Malkajgiri. The Mandal Revenue Officer Malkajgiri stated that connected file is not available. He argued that the Hon'ble High Court in 27506/2007 dt: 12-11-2009 asked the parties to agitate their claims before the competent authorities.

The original Sethwar, Wasool Baqui and original atiyath order to be produced before this court including the pahanics from 1950s. case posted to 25-3-2011.

On 25-3-2011 the counsels present. The counsel for Khaja Ahmeduddin submitted the copies of various orders and other document. The counsel for cantonment board sought time. The documents like Wasool Baqui. Classer Register, Sethwar were verified. Posted to 1-4-2011.

On 1-4-2011 the counsel for the cantonment board present. He argued the case and stated that the issue relates to only to allotting of New survey number. There is also Court direction relating to this.