Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 33283
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Khazi Md. KhaleelurRahman – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.31877 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy
For the Respondents: learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri Shafath Ahmad Khan
The Khazis Act, 1880 does not recognize hereditary claims to the office of Khazi, and appointments must follow due process as outlined in Section 2.
Headnote:(A) Khazis Act, 1880 - Section 2 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner challenges the legality of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 appointing respondent No.4 as Khazi, claiming hereditary rights over the Khazi position - Court finds that the appointment process conformed to Section 2, which does not recognize hereditary succession - The petitioner's claims of being the rightful successor were deemed unsupported by law. (Paras 10-14)
(B) Appointment of Khazi - The court held that the appointment is not hereditary and must involve consultation with local Mohammadans as per Section 2 of the Khazis Act - The petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition (12 years) further undermined his claims. (Paras 13-14)
(C) The court emphasized that any misconduct by the appointed Khazi can lead to removal under Section 2 - The petitioner is permitted to seek redress regarding land transactions by the Khazi. (Paras 14-15)
Findings of Court:
The appointment of respondent No.4 as Khazi is valid under Section 2 of the Khazis Act, and the petitioner’s claims lack legal standing.
Issues: Whether the appointment of Khazi is hereditary and the validity of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Khazis Act does not support hereditary claims for the Khazi position and that the appointment must follow due process as outlined in the Act.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus, seeking the following reliefs:
(a) To declare the GOMs.No.86 dated 27.09.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Dept., Waqf-1 Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, is illegal, consequently to quash the GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012.
(b) To direct the first respondent/Government of Telangana, to consider the representation dt.17.10.2023 of the petitioner in appointing him as Khazi to KhilaGhanpura and other Paraganas like Ghanpur, Kandoor, Yanmangandla, Avancha, Thatikonda, Badepalle, Kodagal, Lingumpet, Amarabad, thimmajimpeta, Rudraram, Sankalmaddi, Devarakadra, Jadcherla, Kalwakurthy etc., Paraganas of the then combined Mahabubnagar District, and pass orders as are fit and just under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. Heard Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents 1 and 2; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3; and Sri Shafath Ahmad Khan for respondent No.4.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the writ affidavit, is that the respondent No.4 is a third person and in no way connected to the Khaziship to Khila ghanpur and other paraganas; that during the lifetime of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, his cousin Khazi Md. Abdul Rahman S/o Md Hassan, who is the great grandfather of petitioner have been rendering services of Khazayath of Khila Ghanpura paraganas with half share each; that Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin had no male lineal descendant and adopted Md. Omer who is daughter’s son and as per Muslim personal law maternal grandson has no right over Khazayath. The respondent No.4 himself styled as Khazi filed a fake genealogy/family tree with the support of Abdul Rahman, by obtaining the names of his family members and relatives in the letter of the then District collector, dated 04.09.1997; that on the death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin, the entire Khazayath and Khazi services fall on Khazi and Khazi services fall on Khazi Abdul Rahman S/o Md. Hassan, who was the male lineal descendant to Asaldar Khazi shaik Rafiuddin S/o Late Shaik Hassan; that as per partition deed, Khazi Abdul rahman was the half shareholder of Khazayat; that on the death of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin as per Muslim law, the share of Khazi Gulam Mohiuddin also fell to the petitioner’s great grandfather late Khazi Abdul Rahman. These facts are supported by Munthaqab No.3846 of 1310 Fasli and Munthaqab No.4846 of 1310 Fasli. It is also relevant to state that the then District Collector in file No.B2/8597/1995 dated 17.09.1997 also conducted that the petitioner and hs brothers are the Successors-in-interest and are the legal heirs to Asaldar Khazi Shaik Rafiuddin S/o late Shaik Hassan, however the then District Collector incorrectly came to the conclusion that Md. Qutubuddin and gulam Mohiuddin are equal shareholders; that the 4th respondent mislead the Government and filed fake documents and illegally got appointed as Khazi, and sold away the lands connected to Khazayath services and created third party interests, and they obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, but all the Inams in Telangana ought to have been dealt with under the Telangana Inams Abolition Act only and then pattas ought tohave ben granted in the names of Successors-in-interest; that the genealogy filed with the writ petition would establish the real successors- in interest of Khazi; that the 4th respondent is an imposter and obtained GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 and committed several illegalities; that in his representation to Principal Secretary, he stated his name as Khazi Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o Khazi Ahmed Mohiuddin; and filed WP No.25616 of 1998 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 11.09.1998 against which W.A.No.1526 of 1998 was filed and same was dismissed on 21.09.1998; that as per the election card, the 4th respondent is named as Khazi Syed Ghouse, now the present name is Syed Ghouse
