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

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 12769

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAK, J
Khazi Md. KhaleelurRahman – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.31877 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri Shafath Ahmad Khan

The appointment of a Khazi is not hereditary and must follow the consultation process with local Mohammedans as stipulated in Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880.

Headnote:(A) Khazis Act, 1880 - Section 2 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition challenging the legality of GOMs No.86 dated 27.09.2012 appointing a Khazi - The petitioner claimed hereditary rights to the Khaziship based on family lineage and alleged misconduct by the appointed Khazi - The court emphasized that the appointment of Khazi is not hereditary as per Mohammedan law and the Khazis Act, which requires consultation with local Mohammedans for such appointments - The petitioner’s claims were found to be unsupported by legal provisions and the process for appointment was deemed valid - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14)

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 TelanganaInams 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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top