Telangana High Court
Nawab Mohd. Shamsuddin Khan vs M/S. Anish Construction Co. , on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
O.S.A. No.1 of 2024 in Application No.837 of 2013 in C.S. No.7 of 1958
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)
Mr. T.K. Sreedhar for the appellants.
Manjari S Ganu and the learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents.
This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent aggrieved by the final decree order dated 19.09.2013
passed in Application No.837 of 2013 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 by the
learned Single Judge in favour of the respondents/petitioners
pertaining to Item No.252 Schedule ‘A’ property admeasuring
Acs.65-56 cents and Schedule ‘B’ property to the extent of Acs.11-43
cents and Schedule ‘B1’ to the extent of Acs.15-57 cents and Schedule
‘A1’ to the extent of Acs.7-44 cents totalling Acs.100-00 cents on the
ground that the said final decree has been obtained by playing fraud
on the statute and this Court by making gross misrepresentation of
facts and law and the same is to be set aside.
2. The appellants herein submits that they are the Defendants
No.4(B)(C)(E)(F)(G) & (H) in C.S. No.7 of 1958 and they are represented
by their GPA holder Appellant No.4 vide notarised GPA.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
2 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be
referred to as they are arrayed in the present appeal i.e. Appellants/
Respondents and respondents/petitioners.
4. The Respondents/Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed Application
No.837 of 2013 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 with the following prayer:
“Application under Order 20 Rule 18 R/w
Section 146 & 151 of CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herewith
the High Court will be pleased to pass a final
decree in favour of the petitioners Nof.1 & 2 in
respect of the property measuring Ac.92-56
Cents., (Ac.65-56 Cents vacant land as shown in
schedule “A” and the plan annexed hereto in blue
color) & (Ac.27-00 Gts., land in two bits
measuring Ac.11-43 cents & Ac.15-57 Cents as
shown in Scheudle B & B-1 and the plan annexed
hereto in pink color) in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda
Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District and A
final decree may be passed in favour of the
Respondents No.172 & 173 herein to an extent of
Ac.7-44 cents, as shown in schedule “A-1” and the
plan annexed herewith in yellow color, out of
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda village, Balangar Mandal,
R.R. District, on payment of requisite stamp duty,
and may be pleased to direct the Respondents
No.178 & 179/Receiver-cum-Commissioners to
deliver the physical possession of the properties
(Ac.65-56 Cents vacant land as shown in schedule
“A” and the plan annexed hereto in blue color) and
to an extent of Ac.27-00 Cents, land in two bits
measuring Ac.11-43 cents & Ac.15-57 cents as
shown in schedule B & B-1 and the plan annexed
HAC, J & NVSK, J
3 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
hereto in pink color) in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda
Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. district, in favour
of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and to deliver the
physical possession of the land to an extent of
Ac.7-44 cents, as shown in schedule “A-1” and the
plan annexed herewith in yellow color, out of
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda village, Balangar Mandal,
R.R. District, to the respondents No.172 & 173
herein.”
5. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.09.2013 allowed
the application to the extent of passing final decree only. Assailing the
same, the appellants/respondents filed the present appeal mainly on
the ground that the said final decree has been obtained by playing
fraud on the statute and this Court by making gross
misrepresentation of facts and law and the same is to be set aside,
among other following grounds.
“1. The appellants submits that they are the Defendant No.4 (b) (c) (f) g) & (h)
against the final decree order passed in Application No.837/2013 in C.S.No 7
of 1958 in the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Legal Heir of Defendant
No.4 by name Late. Nawab Mohammed Lateefuddin Khan in respect of
Matruka properties of Asman Jahi Paigah Estate. And as per the Preliminary
Decree in C.S.No.7 of 1958 in the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana the Legal
heirs of Nawab Moin-ud-Dowla Bahadur of Asman Jahi Paigah who are
defendants 2 to 22 in C.S.No. 7 of 1958 are entitled to shares in Item Nos.230
to 254 in Schedule ‘A’ Annexed to preliminary decree, each male member
getting 2/35 share and each female member getting 1/35 share in the
properties. The preliminary decree dated O6.04.1959 is filed herewith in
HAC, J & NVSK, J
4 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
which Shamshiguda is Item No.252 of Schedule ‘A’ annexed to preliminarydecree.
2. Appellants submits that Survey No.57 of Shamshiguda village, is item No:
252, Schedule ‘A’ annexed to preliminary decree in C.S.No.7 of 1958, dated
06/04/1959, belongs to Asman Jahi Paigah Estate. Whereas, the scheme of
partition for Maqta Shamshiguda was submitted by Mr. M. A. Bari & Mr.
Shyamsunder, Advocates, Receiver-cum-Commissioners in respect of item No:
252 Shamshiguda, of schedule ‘A’ Annexed to the preliminary decree in
C.S.No.7 of 1958 as directed by the Hon’ble Court of Andhra Pradesh by order
dated 15/10/2008 in Application S.R.No: 3679 & 5917 of 2007. And the
scheme of partition was presented to the Hon’ble High Court in favour of
Defendents No’s.2 to 22 i.e., Son’s and Daughters of Nawab Moin-ud-Daula
Bahadur. The total extent of land in Survey No.57, Shamshiguda village, as
per the scheme of Partition submitted and allotted to Defendant No’s.2 to 22 is
AC.303-91 gts. And the Scheme of Partition was approved by the Hon’ble High
Court on 17.07.2009 in Application No.495 in C.S.No. 7 of 1958. As per the
Scheme of Partition, approved by the Hon’bel High Court and the Survey Map
showing the scheme of partition, defendant No.4 was allotted shares as
separate bits and marked in the map as follows :
1. 914-647 cents (9.146 Acres)
2. 668-16 cents (6.681 Acres)
3. 107-14 cents (1071 Acres)
4. 24-110 cents (0.241 Acres)
5. 14-290 cents (0.142 Acres)
6. 8-389 cents (0.083 Acres)
HAC, J & NVSK, J
5 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
3. The final decree in Application No.837 of 2013, dated 19.09.2013 in
C.S.No.07/1958 passed in favour of Respondents No’s.1 & 2 is illegal
fraudulent and by gross misrepresentation on the Court and Statutes and by
practising fraud.
4. That the final decree dated 19.09.2023 in application No.837 of 2013 is
without any notice to the affected party as per the content in the Application
showing that Respondents No.15 to 35 and others are not necessary parties
as such no notice was served to the appellant in order to put forth his
objections to the final decree. As such the decree is illegal void Ab initio and
contrary to the principles of established procedure and also against the
procedural law.
5. The final decree dated 19-09-2013 is Ex facie illegal and in the process,
Hon’ble Court has granted relief to the fraudulent persons affecting valuable
legal rights of the appellant and thus it is against the legal principle. That the
appellant submits that the final decree in first place cannot be passed on the
basis of unregistered Assignment Deed dated 16/09/2000 and the
unregistered Conveyance Deed dated 03.08.2003 and the Deed of
Declaration/Confirmation dated 12.08.2011 are running contrary to the
Assignment Deed dated 16.09.2000 with regard to the parties, extent and
schedules.
6. That the Unregistered Assignment Deed dated 16.09.2000 which formed
the basis for the final decree in the first place did not show any consideration
being paid to the so-called assignors who were 20 in number along with their
legal heirs. The fraudulent aspects were raised by some of the affected parties
that the same was obtained by fraud was discussed in the judgement
HAC, J & NVSK, J
6 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
rendered by Justice Sudarshan Reddy and Justice C.V. Ramulu in O.S.A.No.58 to 66, 68 to 72 of 2002 and 19 to 31 of 2003, dated 10th day of June,
2003.
7. The Final decree was speaking about EP/38/2002 that the Respondent
No’s 1 & 2 have acquired the property in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village,
Balanagar Mandal Ranga Reddy district being part of item No.252 of Schedule
‘A’ appended to the preliminary decree to the extent of AC.100-00 under
Unregistered Assignment Deed, dated 16.09.2000 executed by shareholders
and Defendants in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and it is also mentioning that the
Respondents have been delivered the possession of the property by virtue of
Execution proceedings in EP/38/2002 on the file of Principal District Judge
Ranga Reddy district having thus delivered possession to the petitioners and
have fenced the lands by putting barricades over the property. The said
observation of the court is illegal and contrary to Law as the very EP
No.38/2002 based on I.A.No.1460/2000 is itself a blatant fraud and set aside
by the Division Bench.
8. The appellants submits that the I.A.No.1460 of 2002 in C.S.No.7/1958 on
the file of the Hon’ble High Court is only speaking about recognising
Assignment Deed dated 16/09/2000 though the said Assignment Deed was
unregistered the Hon’ble Court cannot pass such an order. As per the order
dated 10/10/2002 in Application No.1460 of 2002 the order speaks that only
Respondents No.l was present and expressed no objection, hence applications
are allowed. The order dated 10/10/2002 neither speaks about the final
decree being passed by the Hon’ble High Court for applying for Execution of
the Decree before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The
Appellants submits that the Application No.1461 does not speak about any
HAC, J & NVSK, J
7 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
order being passed by the Hon’ble Court for directing the District Judge RangaReddy district to entertain the Execution Petition No. 38/2002 to deliver
possession, that too when the Original Assignee were not in possession of the
property in the mentioned schedule.
9. The Appellant submits that there was no Final decree in favour of the
Respondents for transferring the same to the Principal District Judge, Ranga
Reddy district unless there is a Executable decree only that can be executed
by the Subordinate Court of Competent Jurisdiction as per section 39 clause
(2) and any certification of Court Subordinate is based only on the decree sent
for execution as per section 41 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. As such the
entire exercise and the E.P.No.38/2002 and consequential reliefs of putting
the Respondents in physical possession of AC.100-00 is nothing but fraud on
the Court and the authorities and it is not at all binding on the Appellant.
10. The Appellants submits that the E.P. No.38/2002 is mentioning about
property being obtained by the Respondents by virtue of order passed in
Application No.1460 of 2000 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 dated 10/10/2000 while
bare reading of the Application shows that it is for recognising the Assignment
Deed and not for transferring to the Subordinate Court i.e. Ranga Reddy Court
for execution. As seen from record E.P. No.38/2002 is not accompanied by any
Executable Decree with specific schedules which is not traceable to the order
either in application Nos.1460 or in 1461 or from Assignment Deed dated
16/09/2000. As such the entire claim is vague misleading and
misrepresenting the facts before the Court and no order can be passed in
favour of fraudster.
11. The Appellants submits that the claim of the Respondents as per the
Report of the Surveyor only AC.73-00 are available vacant and 27 Acres of
HAC, J & NVSK, J
8 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
built up area with the weaker sections residing, allotted by Government out ofwhich AC.50-00 (item No.1) falling on the northern side, AC.8-00 falling to the
eastern side (item No.3) and item No.5, Extent of AC.6-00 falling to the
southern side and item No.6 to the extent of AC.1-00 and item No.4 to the
extent of AC.8-00 on the south west side but AC.100-00 at one stretch on the
northern side which includes even allotted properly belonging to appellant
which was allotted by the Receiver Commissioner and Lands allotted to other
shareholders is taken into custody and possession said to have been given by
the Mandal Revenue Officer as per the Blue Sheet plan. The Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh as it was then was in O.S.A. No. 58 to 66, 68 to 72
of 2002 and 19 to 31 dated 10.06.2003 have set aside the proceedings taken
by way of execution Proceedings under E.P.38/2002 and all the consequential
reliefs including proceeding before the Revenue Authorities directed applicants
to the said matter to approach the learned single Judge for adjudicating the
claims on similar lines. The appellant was also not served with any notice and
such final decree is bad in Law as it is affecting Appellant’s interest. At the
time of passing the Final decree, already the shares of different Defendants
were demarcated and approved by the Hon’ble High Court by way of Scheme
of Partition and as such even otherwise the Respondents claims shall be
confined only to the shares allotted to the so called Executants of the Deed of
Declaration/Confirmation Deed, dt. 12.08.2011 i.e., Respondents No’s. 11, 12
to 14, 36 to 38, 41 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 57 to 59, 60 to 64, 66 to 69, 72 to 74,
104, 105, 109, 113 to 115, 148, 149, 155 to 159 and 160 to 169, which are
not at all in conformity with the earlier conveyance deed of so called
Respondents 4, 5 to 14, 18, 20, 21, 34 to 38, 40 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 54, 58 to
63, 66 to 68, 71 to 75, 104, 105, 109 to 115, 148 & 149. Even otherwise the
vendors were allotted shares at different places by the approved scheme of
HAC, J & NVSK, J
9 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
partition, which is not tallying with any of the documents i.e. UnregisteredAssignment Deed, Unregistered Conveyance Deed and Registered Deed of
Declaration/ Confirmation and also the E.P. No.38/2002, which was already
set aside by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. As such the final decree
ex-facie and prima facie fraudulent and obtained by gross and deliberate
misrepresentation of facts and law.
12. The Appellants submits that the Final Decree is making a mention about
the assignment deed dated 16/09/2002 as well as conveyance deed dated
03/08/2003 are unregistered documents. As such the court ought to have
dismissed the application for final decree vide Application No.873/2013 under
Order 20 Rule 18 and the same are hit by Section 17 and Section 32A of the
Registration Act, 1908 which was inserted by Act 41 of 2001 with effect from
21/09/2001. As such the conveyance deed dated 03/08/2003 did not
contain the photographs and thumb impression of both buyers and sellers. As
per section 32A only appending forms were filled up without the actual
signatures of both buyers and sellers before the registration authority and the
said document is prima facie fraudulent and illegal.
13. The Appellant begs to submit that the unregistered Conveyance Deed is
mentioning that it is sale deed thus it cannot be treated as mere Conveyance
Deed, just because titled so. The document has to be read as only as an
unregistered sale deed but not conveyance deed. Such observation is contrary
to the document itself and further the division bench on 10/06/2003 has set
aside the E.P. of 38/2002 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga
Reddy district and all the Survey and Revenue Records arising out of the said
E.P.38/2002. But the so-called conveyance deed dated 03/08/2003 there is a
suppression of setting aside of the EP and still there is mention of
HAC, J & NVSK, J
10 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
E.P.38/2002 and reliefs granted, which is nothing but fraud on the court. Andthat too original documents are unregistered the Assignment Deed and
Conveyance Deed are unregistered, the Registered Deed of Declaration /
Confirmation confirming Conveyance Deed is prima facie fraudulent as it is
mentioning about E.P.No.38/2002 and the respondents being put in
Possession by way of E.P. No.38/2002 which was already set aside by the
Division Bench of Justice Sudarshan Reddy and Justice C.V.Ramulu. Non
mentioning of OSAs in the Deed of Declaration / Confirmation amounts to
suppression of material facts and fraud on the Court. In fact there was no
Conveyance Deed at all, but it was unregistered Sale Deed which was only
validated and no registration can be looked into as if the vendors in actual
possession of property. Even otherwise the vendors were allotted shares at
different places by the approved Scheme of Partition which is not tallying with
any of the documents i.e. Unregistered Assignment Deed, Unregistered
conveyance Deed and Registered Deed of Declaration Confirmation and also
the E.P.No.38/2002, which was already set aside by the Division Bench of the
Hon’ble Court. As such the Final Decree Ex-facie and prima facie fraudulent
and obtained by gross and deliberate misrepresentation of facts and laws.
14. The Appellant submits that despite setting aside E.P.38/2002 of the
Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy district and consequent reliefs there of
the Schedule of Property is showing A.C.73-00 of vacant land and
AC.27-00 encroached in Sy.No.57 Shamshiguda Village. As such the schedule
of the property as shown in the so-called unregistered conveyance deed dated
03/08/2003 is going against the present possession alleged by the
Respondents which is exclusively shown inside Blue Sheets where as the
schedules shown as per the Execution Proceedings E.P.38/2002 are scattered
HAC, J & NVSK, J
11 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
as different places and not at one specific place now as being claimed by theRespondents.
15. The Appellant submits that the deed of declaration/confirmation is only
confirming the unregistered assignment deed dated 16/09/2000 and
unregistered conveyance deed dated 03/08/2003 after a period of 12 years
which itself is illegal as the Registration Act clearly bars any document
presented after four months from the date of execution of unregistered
document and maximum time cannot go beyond 8 months as per decision
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court Unitech Ltd vs Telangana State Industrial
Infrastructure Corporative Ltd 2021 SCC online SC 99. Even otherwise the
deed of Declaration/Confirmation is a fraudulent one as it is not mentioning
about the setting aside of EP.38/2002 and consequential possession which
was at different places and the said Deed of Declaration/Confirmation is a
suppression of facts before the Division Bench and the order passed in OSA
No.58 to 66, 68 to 72 of 2002 and the said deed of Declaration/Confirmation
is void Ab initio by virtue of the final decree in application no:837/2013. The
Respondents 1 and 2 have obtained mutation in Revenue Records and entered
into Dharani Portal by suppression of material facts and by misrepresentation
and any reliance on non-reportable judgement rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Vs B. Mahesh
and others cannot be considered as it is based on an application filed by a
third party to the decree until the present appellant whose interests are being
affected by the fraudulent Acts of Respondents 1 & 2 that any properties sold
on such fraudulent decrees and any development agreements and entered into
with Third Parties is treated as nullity void contracts and to be seen as
furtherance of fraud on the court, statute and parties.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
12 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
16. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had passed many final decrees
in favour assignees of Defendants including M/S Anish Construction Co and
My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society. The final decree Application of
the present Petitioner Nawab Mohammed Fakruddin Khan, APPL.892/2013
dated 20/03/2013 is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. It is
submitted that based on the Application of M/S Anish Constriction Co and My
Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, in Application No: 837 of 2013 in
C.S.No:7 of 1958 the Hon’ble High Court ordered and passed final decree on
19/09/2013 in favour of M/S Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually
Aided Cooperative Society for an extent of AC.65-56 cents, as shown in
schedule ‘A’ and the plan marked in Blue colour and an extent of AC.27-00
cents and shown in two bits measuring AC.11-43 cents and AC.15-57 cents
as shown in schedule ‘B’ and “B1′, and plan annexed to final decree in Pink
colour.
17. The final decree is based on a registered “Deed of Declaration/
Confirmation” dated on 12/08/2011, registered as Document No:
293/1V/2011 by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad.
Whereas it is submitted that the Deed of Declaration/Confirmation” was
executed only by certain Defendants. The Deed of Declaration/Confirmation
was for AC.92-56 cents only out of total extent in Sy.No:57 of Shamshiguda
village (as per the scheme of Partition of Receiver cum commissioners) of Ac.
303-91 gts.
18. The appellants humbly submits that, as per the scheme of Partition
submitted by Receiver-cum-Commissioners to the Hon’ble High Court, the
Defendant No’s.2 to 22 were allotted areas not as a single unit for each
HAC, J & NVSK, J
13 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Defendant but scattered into 5 to 6 bits for each Defendant at different places
in total extent of AC 303-91. Thus, no defendant can claim his share as
allotment.
19. Whereas it is submitted that based on an Application No:5 of 2020 in
Application No: 837 of 2013 in C.S.No: 7 of 1958, filed by Sri. B. Mahesh and
others in Hon’ble High Court for cancellation of Final Decree issued in
Application No: 837 of 2013 in favour of M/S Anish Construction Co and My
Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative society, the Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana vide its order dated 21/09/2021 ordered for Recall of Final decree
dated 19/09/2013 in Application No: 837 of 2013 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and
held that the final Decree was obtained by playing Fraud upon the Court.
20. The Hon’ble High Court again made it clear that the Court have not held
that the Applicants Sri. B. Mahesh and others in Application No.5 of 2020 have
established their rights, title and interest in the land in Sy.No.57 of
Shamshiguda village, and whatever observations and findings are given in
this order as regards them are only to determine their locus stand to file this
Application and not for any other purpose.
21. Whereas it is submitted that, aggrieved by the orders for Recall of Final
decree in Application No:837 of 2013 My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative
Society, filed Civil Appeal No.5784 of2022 @ S.LP(Civil) No.7015 of 2022 in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its orders
dated August 23rd 2022, the Appeal was allowed by setting aside the order
dated 21/09/2021 passed in IA No 5/2020 in Application No: 837 of 2013 in
C.S.No 7 of 1958.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
14 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
22. Whereas it is submitted, based on Applications by M/S Anish Construction
Co and My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society before the Revenue
Authorities i.e., Tahsildar Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
Hyderabad, The Tahsildar Kukatpally Mandal Mutated the Lands in Revenue
Records in favour of M/S Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually
Aided Cooperative Society for an extent of 92-56 Acres in Sy.No.57 of
Shamshiguda village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
Hyderabad, as per plan marked as A+B+B1. An extent of Ac 24-03 gts is
mutated in the name of My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society under
Sy.No’s.57/1/2, Shamshiguda village and an extent of AC.68-19 gts in
Sy.No’s.57/3, situated at Shamshiguda village in favour of Anish Construction
Co totalling an extent of Ac.92-22 guntas (AC.92-56 gts).
23. Whereas it is submitted that even though various Defendants were allotted
at different places in 5 to 6 bits, the above mutation in Revenue records was
done almost as a single unit at one place which is against the scheme of
partition submitted by the Receivers-cum-Commissioners. This Mutation was
done absolutely against the scheme of Partition and the District Collector,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District played fraud on the Petitioner, Fraud on the statute and
Fraud on the Courts to benefit the Respondents M/S Anish Construction Co
and My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society. Illegal gains and benefits
are clearly evident from the illegal Act of The District Collector and Tahsildar.
Especially the new Receiver Commissioner has been appointed and the
objections for the report are pending to be filed before the Hon’ble Court.
24. Whereas it is submitted that immediately after mutation in Revenue
Records, Respondents No’s.1 and 2 i.e., My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative
HAC, J & NVSK, J
15 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Society and M/S Anish Construction CO created Third Party interest in favour
of Respondent No.183, M/s EXELLA Properties by entering into Registered
Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney dated on 18th May
2023, as follows:
1. MY PALACE MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND
EXELLA PROPERTIES Registered as Document No: 2/2023 dated
18/05/2023 At the office of the Tahsildar and Joint Sub Register Kukatpally.
2. ANISH CONSTRUCTION CO AND EXELLA PROPERTIES Registered
as Document No: 1/2023 dated 18/05/2023 At the office of the Tahsildar and
Joint Sub Register Kukatpally.
This clearly shows the mala fide and fraudulent intentions of
Respondent No.1 and 2 i.e., My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society
and M/S Anish Construction Co.
25. Whereas the LRs of Defendant No.4 i.e., D4 including the petitioner herein
have been allotted an extent of 914-647 (Ac.9.146) and 668-16 cents (AC.6.68)
and 153-873 (Ac.1.53) cents totalling 1736-680 cents (Ac.17.366).
The share of Defendant No.4 is allotted and marked in the Scheme of Partition
Maps as follows:
1. 914-647 cents
2. 668-16 cents
3. 107-14 cents
4. 24-110 cents
5. 14-290 cents
6. 8-333 cents
HAC, J & NVSK, J
16 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
26. Whereas from the above it can be clearly observed that the share of
Defendant No.4 i.e., the Petitioner herein is allotted as 6 different bits and
were clearly marked in the scheme of Partition Map of the Receivers and
Commissioners which is being enclosed and the respondents are proceeding
with illegal constructions, which is fraud on the Court and the Appellants,
amounting unlawful enrichment.
27. Whereas it is submitted that as per the location on sketch of Sy.No.57 of
Shamshiguda village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as per
Tahsildar Kukatpally Mandal an area of AC.60-15 gts is only shown as
vacant land and actually the vacant land behind Blue sheets which was in
possession of Tahsildar Kukatpally Mandal, may be around Ac.80-00 gts.
28. It is submitted that the final decree Application of the Defendant No.4 i.e.
D4 bearing No: 892 dated 20/03/2013 is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana for the last 10 years and that now the Hon’ble High Court is
considering the Report of the new Receiver-cum-Commissioners for passing
any orders in Applications for Final Decrees.
29. Whereas it is submitted that the mutation in Revenue Records
done by Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in
favour of M/S Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually Aided
Cooperative Society for an extent of AC.92-56 gts in Sy.No:57,
Shamshiguda village, which was also entered into the Dharani Portal
also covers an area of 153-873 cents (1.53 acres) belonging to LRs of
D4, as per the scheme of partition submitted by the Receiver-cum-
Commissioners is highly illegal, fraudulent and the Petitioner herein
i.e., D4 is put to irreparable loss for which action of the Tahsildar
HAC, J & NVSK, J
17 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Kukatpally Mandal and the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, who is the approving Authority are liable for contempt and
prosecution. It is also submitted that the Appellant herein had
requested the Mandal Revenue officer, Balanagar Mandal (now
Kukatpally Mandal) vide his letter dated 10th March 2019 for Mutation
of Land falling to the share of Defendant No.4 i.e., D4, as per the
scheme of Partition submitted by Receiver-cum-Commissioners for
which no reply was received and no action was taken.
30. It is submitted that another letter was submitted for mutation of land
fall1ng to the share of Defendants No.4 to the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad dated 06/09/2021 for which no reply
was received and no action was taken.
31. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein personally approached the
Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, for Mutation of Lands falling to the share of
Defendant No.4 i.e., D4 and he had replied that unless the Final Decree is
there the Revenue Authorities cannot mutate the Lands.
32. The appellants humbly submits that the total extent of land in
Shamshiguda Village, Sy.No: 57 is AC.303-91 gts. M/S Ashish Construction
Co and My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society have entered into Decd
of Declaration/confirmation with some of the Defendants, for a total extent of
AC.100-00 gts only out of AC.303-91 gts i.e., around 33% of the total extent.
The Defendants have been allotted their shares in 5 to 6 bits and not as a
single unit and these 5 to 6 bits are scattered all around Sy.No: 57. The plan
prepared and approved by the Tahsildar, Kukatpally and allotted Ac.92-56 gts
in favour of Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative
HAC, J & NVSK, J
18 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Society is almost as a single unit contrary to the scheme of partition submitted
by the Receivers-cum-commissioners. The plan also includes an extent of 153-
873 cents (AC.1-538) which was allotted to Defendant No.4 i.e., D4 which is
highly illegal. This is a Fraud played by the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal and
District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District to favour Respondents 7 and 8
and to get illegal gratification in the process. The Tahsildar should be ordered
to protect the land of AC.1-538 allotted to Defendant No.4.
33. The appellants humbly submits that the Layout plan prepared and
approved by the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal for AC.92-56 gts is mainly
covering the vacant area within the Blue Sheets as a single unit which is
highly irregular. Even as per the survey report of the Tahsildar, Kukatpally the
vacant land available in Sy.No: 57, Shamshiguda village is only AC.60-34 gts,
and most of the vacant land is allotted to Respondents No’s.1 & 2 which is
highly irregular and against the scheme of partition submitted by the
Receivers-cum-Commissioners. Even though in the plan prepared and allotted
to Respondents No.1 and 2, share allotted to D4, for an extent of 6.681 Acres
is shown as untouched but it is within the Blue sheets which has an extent of
70 to 80 Acres only and there is every possibility that D4 share shall also be
taken possession which is a ground reality. The plan approved by the
Tahsildar, Kukatpally also shows some of the occupied areas like Maisamma
Temple, Janmabhoomi Colony allotted by Government to weaker sections.
Hence the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal should be ordered to protect the
share of Defendant No.4 for an extent of 6.681 Acres which is inside the Blue
sheets.
34. It is submitted that if the entire unoccupied/Vacant land is allotted to
Respondent No’s.1 and 2 i.e., Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually
HAC, J & NVSK, J
19 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Aided Cooperative Society, contrary to the Scheme of Partition, Defendant No.
4 shall be put to irreparable loss by having only occupied lands to their share
which is highly illegal. It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal
has to Mutate the entire extent of AC.303-91 gts, of land in Sy.No.57,
Shamshiguda Village in the name of the original Pattadar/Decree holders in
CS.No.7 of 1958 i.e LRs of Asman Jahi Paigan Estate and without entering the
names of original Pattadars, how mutation can be done in favour of Third
Parties.
35. It is also submitted that the Final Decree dated 19/09/2013 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court against Application No.837, do not contain any details
of individual shares assigned by the Defendants nor in the Deed of
Declaration/Confirmation registered as Document No.293/IV/2011 dated
12/08/2011, in the absence of which it is very difficult to ascertain which
schedule of property was assigned. Any Assignment by the Defendants
should only be as per the scheme of Partition submitted by the Receiver cum
Commissioners.
36. It is submitted that the respondents 1 & 2 have made applications for
Passbook Data Correction through Dharani Portal vide Application
Nos.2300050081, dated 09.03.2023 and Application No.2300050346, dated
09.03.2023 respectively. The respondents 178 & 179 i.e. the District Collector
& Tahsildar, enquired into the matter and as per the findings of the Tahsildar
vide File Nos.B/73/2021, dated 10.03.2023 the applications of the
respondents1 & 2 are processed and mutation is done in their favour.
“On perusal of documents submitted by applicant it is found that M/s. Anish
Constructions recorded as Pattedar in Sy.No.57, to an extent of
Ac.68-19 Gts., out total extent of Ac.279.3098 Gts., in Shamshiguda Village.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
20 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958“On perusal of documents submitted by applicant it is found that M/s.
My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Op. Society Rep. by Sripad Deshpande
recorded as Pattedar in Sy.No.57, to an extent of Ac.24-03 Gts. out
total extent of Ac.279.3098 Gts. in Shamshiguda Vllage.
At present in Shanshiguda Village Sy.No.57, admeasuring total to an
extent Ac.279.3098 Gts., recorded as Government land in Notional
Khata 2000010l on patta lands which is wrongly marked in Dharani
Portal.
On verification of revenue records of Shamshiguda Village based on
the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 & 2010-11 to 2015-16
admeasuring Ac.274-33 gts. is classified as Poramboke Sarkari.
Originally, the land in Sy.No.274 of Kukatpally Village was recorded
in the Revenue Records as Poramboke Sarkari land. It is submitted
that the same Sy.No.274 later it was renumbered as Sy.No.57 as
Shamshiguda Village.
It is to submit that according to Court case in CS 7 of1958
Dt.06.04.1959 preliminary decree the subject land is considered as
patta lands of Matruka properties of paigah which is confirmed by
CCLA vide Lr.No.A2/206/2009, dt.22.02.2010, Government of
Telangana vide Memo No.33149/JA/2021 Dt.25.02.2023. The third
parties filed IA 5 of 2020 in 837 of 2013 the then Supreme Court of
India Civil Appeal No.5784 of 2022 @ Special Leave Petition
(SLP)(CIVIL) No.7015 of 202) has directed and passed Orders in favour
of M/s. Anish Construction Co. Rep. by Bore Nirmala, My Palace
Mutually Adlded Co.Op. Society Rep. by Sripad Deshpande recorded as
HAC, J & NVSK, J
21 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
pattedar in Sy.No.57 of Shamshigudg Village, Kukatpally Mandal,Medcha-Malkajgiri District comprising total extent of Ac.92-56 cents
as patta lands.
Further Government has also accorded permission to update in
Dharani Portal and also directed to remove the said extent from
Prohibitory List.
Moreover applicant has applied in Sy.No.57, Ac.68-19 Gts. out of
Ac.274-33 gts. in favour of M/s. Anish Construction for passbook Data
Correction for implementation in Dharani Online records, which is
recorded as “Government lands” in Notional Khata to patta land khata
as patta lands.
Moreover applicant has applied in Sy. No.57 (Ac.24-03 gts.) out of
Ac.274-33 Gts. in favour of My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Op. Housing
Society, Rep. by Sripad Deslhpande, for Passbook Data Correction for
implementation of Dharani Online Records, which is recorded as
Lands Government Lands” in Notional Khata to Patta Land Khata as
Patta Lands.
No RSR Issue.
EC Verified. No sale transactions found in the name of pattedar.
Hence the request of the applicant is recommended for approval.
Sub-Division record preparation is under process.
With the same findings, by changing the extent of lands has
recommended for approval in another application made by M/s. Exella
properties.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
22 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Basing on the above findings the applications of the respondents 1 &
2 are processed and mutation is done in their favour.
It is pertinent to note that throughout the findings of the Tahsildar,
no mention of the scheme of partition are made, which is very much
relevant as the partition is done in favour of 22 beneficiaries.
37. It is submitted that the findings of the respondents 178 & 179 on the
Dharani Applications made by the respondents 1 & 2 and further mutating the
lands as sought through the applications is illegal and contrary to the Scheme
of Partition approved on 17.07.2009 vide Order in Application No. 495 in CS
No.7/1958 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and in contravention Confirmation
and Declaration dated 12.08.2011.
38. The appellants reserves their right to raise any other grounds at the time
of hearing.
KNOWLEDGE:
a. That the appellants came to know about the magnitude of fraud on
25.07.2023 when other fraudulent persons were encroaching on the
appellants’ part of the schedule property in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village,
wherein a complaint was lodged before the police at P.S. Jagadgirigutta,
Hyderabad, at the same time when the appellants visited other part of the
schedule property behind Blue Sheets, the appellants noticed that respondents
1 & 2 are encroaching upon the allotted property of appellants, as per the
illegal acts, the passage of final decree is ex-facie illegal and caused severe
prejudice to the petitioner / appellant and in such a situation, the Hon’ble
Court is under obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the Act of the
HAC, J & NVSK, J
23 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Court as per the established legal maxim “Actus Curiae Neminem Grayabik”
which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes
applicable in such a case. In such a case, the Court is under obligation to undo
the wrong done to a party by the Act of the Court.
b. As per the Judgement in Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs vs. Motial
(Dead) through LRs (2009) 14 SCC 663, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the said Maxim is established upon justice and equity and help in
the law administration.
The Court observed hence;
This well settled position need not detain us, when the second point
urged by the appellant is focused. There can be no quarrel with the proposition
as noted by the Hon’ble High Court that a party cannot be made to suffer on
account of an act of the Court. There is well recognized maxim of equity,
namely “actus curiae neminem gravabit” which means an act of the Court
shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense,
which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law.
c. And also as per Judgment in UPSRTC vs. Imityaz Hussain 2006 (1)
SCC 380 the said maxim was analyzed.
d. And also as per Judgment in Orissa Development Corporation vs.
Anupam Traders, no party should suffer due to Act of Court. As such not only
the respondents 1 & 2 but the other respondents i.e. respondents i.e. 178 to
183 are also necessary parties and their illegal acts has to be condemned. The
appellants’ interest shall not be affected. The respondents shall not change the
nature or status of the property or shall make any further constructions.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
24 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
FRAUD :
a. And as per legal maxim “Fraus est calare fraudam” it is fraud to
conceal a fraud. And also Justice nemini neganda est” justice is to be denied
to nobody.
Maxim – The fraud and justice will never dwell together as per legal
maxim “Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” which is relied upon by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. vs. Rajender Singh and others
Mau/SC/0180/2000.
b. And also compulsory registration of conveyance of immovable
property U/s.49 & 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 as per Suraj Lamps and
Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363.
Fraud on Court : Parties must come before the Court with clean hands and
fraud on the Court whereby the Judgment and Decree obtained by playing
fraud will be a nullity including consent decree obtained by fraud. Hence such
decree and also all subsequent Judgements and Decrees passed on claims of
Right, Title, interest and possession based on decree which is vitiated by
Fraud liable to be set aside Badami (deceased) by LRs vs. Bali (2012) 11 SCC
574.
c. Any Judgment or Order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and it
can be challenged at any stage, at any time in appeal, revision, Or even in
collateral proceedings as per Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in A.P.
Papayya Sastry and Others vs. Government of A.P. and others (2007) 4 SCC
221.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
25 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
d. The Judgment or Decree obtained by fraud to be treated as nullity
and can be questioned even in collateral proceedings. Non-disclosure of
relevant documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. Held
decree obtained by non-disclosure of release deed amount of fraud on Court
and hence decree liable to be set aside (1994) 1 SCC S.P. Chengalavarai
Naidu (dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.
Prayer:
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may set aside the Final Decree
passed in Application No.837/2013 in C.S.No.7 of 1958, dated 19/09/2013
as the same was obtained by playing fraud on the Court by Suppressing
Division Bench orders dated 10/06/2003 which set aside the EP.38/2002 on
which the Respondents are relying on the Schedule of Property for which
possession said to have been given. As on today none of the Defendants are in
possession of their shares, the Hon’ble Court by allowing the appeal may be
pleased to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material made available on the record.
7. For better appreciation, it is necessary to extract the final decree
dated 19.09.2013 passed in Application No.837 of 2013 in C.S. No.7
of 1958 by the learned Single Judge.
“1. That the Civil Suit C.S. No.7/1958 is a suit for
partition and separate possession respect of the
Matruka properties of Late Nawab Moinduddowla
HAC, J & NVSK, J
26 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Bahadur, forming Paigah Asmajahi. The Hon’ble
High Court has passed a preliminary decree in
C.S. No.7/1958 on 6-4-1959 by virtue of a
compromise, under which the Plaintiff and
Defendant No.1 have received the cash, mansions,
urban properties and securities, therefore the
share of Defendants No.2 to 22 are determined,
holding them entitled to receive their shares in all
other suit schedule properties including the
properties shown in item No.230 to 254 of
schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary decree.
2.That the property in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda
village, Balangar Mandal, R.R. District is part of
item No.252 of schedule “A” appended to the
preliminary decree, which is Matruka properties of
Moinuddowla Bahadur, wherein the Defendants
No.2 to 22 are held entitled to receive the due
share in terms of the preliminary decree in C.S.
No.7/1958. The Chief Commissioner Land
Administration, Govt., of A.P., submitted a report
to the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue
Department, A.P. Secretariat vide CCLA
LR.No.NA2/206/2009 dated 22-02-2010,
confirming that the land in Sy.No.57 of
Shamsiguda village, is a private patta land
belonging to Paigah Asmajahi. The said
proceedings have become final and therefore the
Government of A.P., represented by the
Respondents No.180 to 182 is bound by the
preliminary decree as well as this final decree.
3. That the Petitioners No.1 & 2 have acquired the
property in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village,
Balangar Mandal, R.R. District, being part of Item
No.252 of Schedule “A” appended to the
HAC, J & NVSK, J
27 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
preliminary decree, to an extent of Ac.100-Gts.,
under an Assignment Deed executed by the Share
Holders/Defendants. The Petitioners No.1 & 2
have been brought on record and they have also
been delivered possession of the property by virtue
of the execution proceedings in E.P. No.38/2002
on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Judge R.R.
District. Having thus delivered possession the
Petitioners Nof.1 & 2 have fenced the land by
putting the barricades around the said property.
4. That the Respondents 4, 5, 10 to 14, 18, 20,
21, 34 to 38, 40 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 54, 56 to 63,
66 to 68, 71 to 75, 104, 105, 109 to 115, 148 &
149, have also executed a document, titled as
“CONVEYANCE DEED” dated 3-8-2003 in favour
of the petitioners No.1 & 2, conveying the property
measuring Ac.100-00 Gts., with specific
boundaries in favour of the petitioners No.1 & 2.
Since the Assignment Deed dated 16-09-2000 as
well as the said Conveyance Deed dated 3-8-2003
are unregistered documents, therefore another
registered document namely “DEED Of
DECLARATION/CONFIRMATION” dated
12-08-2011 is executed by the Respondents No.4,
11, 12 to 14, 36 to 38, 41 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 57
to 59, 60 to 64, 66, 66 to 69, 72 to 74, 104, 105,
109, 113 to 115, 148, 149, 155 to 159 & 160 to
169 and thereby declared and confirmed to the
effect that they have sold, transferred, granted and
conveyed the property measuring Ac.100-00 Gts.,
in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, R.R. District as shown in the schedules
respectively and the plan annexed thereto and the
boundaries mentioned therein. The said ‘DEED
OF DECLARATION/CONFIRMATION” dated
HAC, J & NVSK, J
28 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
12-08-2011 is registered as Doct. No.293/IV2011
by the District Registrar R.R. District.
5. That out of the Ac.100-00 Cents., of land in
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, the petitioners
No.1 & 2 have parted with an extent of Ac.7-44
Cents, in favour of the Respondents No.172 & 173
herein which is shown in schedule “A-1” annexed
to the petition. Therefore, the Respondents
No.172 & 173 are also brought on record as
Defendants No.148 & 149 in C.S. No.7/1958 and
they are also granted the ifnal decree to the extent
of Ac.7-44 Cents., as shown in the said schedule
and a separate final decree is engrossed. The
Respondents No.148 to 171 who are the legal
heirs of the deceased share holders, are also
brought on record as Defendants in C.S.
No.7/1958 vide orders dated 13.09.2013 in
Appl.No.838/2013 in C.S. No.1958.
6. That out of Ac.100-00 Cents, the Petitioners
No.1 & 2 have parted with and allotted an extent
of Ac.7-44 Cents., in favour the Respondents
No.72 & 173, therefore the petitioners are held
entitled to get the final decree passed to an extent
of Ac.92-56 Cents., in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda
Village, being the alenees pendent lite. The said
land measuring Ac.92-56 cents, is not forming a
compact block but is in three bits, an extent of
Ac.65-56 Cents, as shown in schedule “A” and the
plan in blue color appended to this final decree
and an extent of Ac.27-00 Cents shown in two bits
measuring Ac.11-43 Cents & Ac.15-57 Cents., as
shown in schedule “B” & “B-1” and the plan
annexed to this final decree in pink color.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
29 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
7. Therefore this court do hereby grant the final
decree in favour of the petitioners No.1 & 2 in
respect of the land admeasuring Ac.92-56 Cents.,
in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, being the
alienees pendent lite, which is shown in three bits,
i.e., an extent of Ac.65-56 Cents, as shown in
schedule “A” and the plan in blue color appended
to this final decree and an extent of Ac.27-00
Cents shown in two bits measuring Ac.11-43
Cents & Ac.15-57 Cents., as shown in schedule
“B” & “B-1” and the plan annexed to this final
decree in pink color. Thus by virtue of this final
decree, the petitioners are be and hereby declared
as absolute owners of the land measuring Ac.92-
56 Cents., in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village,
Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District being part of item
No.252 of schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary
decree in C.S. No.7/1958, being the alienees
pendent elite, which is shown in three bits, i.e., an
extent of Ac.65-56 Cents, as shown in schedule
“A” and the plan in blue color appended to this
final decree and an extent of Ac.27-00 Cents
shown in two bits measuring Ac.11.-43 Cents &
Ac.15-57 Cents, as shown in schedule “B” & “B-1”
and the plan annexed to this final decree in pink
color.
8. This Court further do hereby grant the final
decree in favour fo the Respondents No.172 & 173
in respect of the land measuring Ac.7-44 Cents.,
in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, which is
shown in schedule “A-1” and the plan in yellow
color appended to this final decree. Thus by
virtue of this final decree, the Respondents No.172
& 173 are be and hereby declared as absolute
owners of the land measuring Ac.7-44 Cents., in
HAC, J & NVSK, J
30 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, R.R. District being part of item No.252 of
schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary decree in
C.S. No.7/1958 and morefully described in
schedule A-1 and the plan in yellow color annexed
to this final decree.
9. That the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the
Respondents No.172 & 173 are be and hereby
directed to pay the remuneration to the Recivers-
cum-Commissioners in respect of their respective
extents of the land land finally decree in their
favour within two weeks.
10. That there be no order as to costs.
SCHEDULE “A” PROPERTY
ADMESURING AC.65-56 CENTS
All that vacant land in physical possession
of Second Party No.1 & 2/Final Decree Petitioners,
admeasuring Ac.65-56 Cents, in Sy.No.57 of
Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.
District, shown in blue color in the plan annexed
hereto being part of item No.252 of schedule “A”
annexed to the preliminary decree in C.S.
No.7/1958 pending on the file of Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by :-
North : Village boundary of Gajula Ramaram
South : Bagh Ameeri Tank & Part of Sy.No.57
allotted to Defendants No.3.
East : Land allotted to Respondents No.174 to
177 and land allotted to Defendant No.3
& V.B. of Kukatpally.
West : Land shown in schedule “B” in Sy.No.57
of Shamsiguda Village.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
31 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
SCHEDULE “B” PROPERTY
ADMESURING AC.11-43 CENTS
All that land measuring Ac.11-43 Cents in
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, R.R. District, shown in pink color in the
plan annexed hereto being part of item No.252 of
schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary decree in
C.S. No.7/1958 pending on the file of Hon’ble
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by
:-
North : Village boundary of Gajula Ramaram
South : Bagh Ameeri Tank.
East : Land shown in schedule “A”
West : V.B., of Bachupally Village.
SCHEDULE “B-1” PROPERTY
ADMESURING AC.15-57 CENTS
All that land measuring Ac.15-57 Cents in
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, R.R. District, shown in pink color in the
plan annexed hereto being part of item No.252 of
schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary decree in
C.S. No.7/1958 pending on the file of Hon’ble
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by
:-
North : Land allotted to Defendant No.3 & 10 in
Sy.No.57
South : Land allotted to Defendant No.7 & 12 in
Sy.No.57
East : Land allotted to Defendant No.6 and the
land shown in schedule “A-1” allotted to
the Respondents No.172 & 173.
West : Land allotted to Defendant No.3 & 10.
HAC, J & NVSK, J
32 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
SCHEDULE “A-1” PROPERTY
LAND ADMESURING AC.7-44 CENTS
All that land measuring Ac.7-44 Cents in
Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, R.R. District, shown in yellow color in the
plan annexed hereto being part of item No.252 of
schedule “A” annexed to the preliminary decree in
C.S. No.7/1958 pending on the file of Hon’ble
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by
:-
North : 40 feets wide road in Sy.No.57 of
Shamsiguda Village.
South : Land allotted to Defendant No.6 and land
in schedule “B-1” allotted to the
petitioners No.1 & 2.
East : Land allotted to Defendant No.5 and the
land shown in schedule “A” allotted to
the petitioners No.1 & 2.
West : 40 feets wide road and the land allotted to
Defendant No.3.
8. At this juncture, it is significant to note that the Division Bench
of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 closed the C.S. No.7 of 1958
wherein at para No.36 observed as under:
“36. On a perusal of the paragraph 4(g) of the
preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959, it is evident
that the defendant Nos.2 to 22 were entitled to the
properties mentioned at item Nos.230 to 254 of
Schedule ‘A’ annexed to the preliminary decree, in
case the same are restored or released in favour of
Asman Jahi Paigah. In the instant case,
admittedly, there is no material to indicate that
the properties mentioned at serial No.230 to 254
of Schedule ‘A’ to the preliminary decree have
HAC, J & NVSK, J
33 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
been restored or released in favour of Asman Jahi
Paigah. It is pertinent to note that as per para 4(g)
of the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959, the
Commissioners-cum-Receivers have the power to
sell the property by way of public auction and
exercise all powers necessary for effecting the
division of the sale between the defendants No.2
to 12 and 14 to 22. Accordingly, each son would
get 2/33 and each daughter would get 1/33 in the
properties of Schedule ‘A’ except items 230 to 254
of the Schedule and items of properties allotted to
the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.2 to 22 will get
their share, namely, each son getting 2/35 and
each daughter getting 1/35 from the arrears of
income future income, compensation or
commutation or sale proceeds of the items 230 to
254 of Schedule ‘A’ detailed under the head of
“Makthas” in case of the same are restored or
released in favour of Paigah Asman Jahi.”
9. It is not out of place to note here that the learned counsel
Mr. T.K. Sreedhar appearing for the appellants herein represented in
C.S. No.7 of 1958 wherein he made the following submission,
which reads as under:
“…. Mr.T.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the legal
representatives of defendant No.4 in the suit and
for respondent No.4 in application No.24 of 2024
submitted that the report dated 06.09.2023
submitted by the receiver cum commissioner in so
far as it pertains to lands mentioned in Sl.
Nos.232 to 254 is required to be rejected. Learned
counsel further submitted that the receiver cum
commissioner appointed by this Court ought to
have appreciated that the final decree cannot be
HAC, J & NVSK, J
34 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
passed in application Nos.1409 of 2013 and 837
of 2013 as the unregistered assignment deeds
were executed and a title in respect of the
immovable property cannot be passed on the basis
of the unregistered document. Therefore, the
application seeking final decree at the instance of
the applicants in application Nos.1409 of 2013
and 837 of 2013 is not maintainable and it is also
pointed out that the receiver cum commissioner
has cursorily prepared the report and ought to
have examined the issue in greater detail as the
Government is in possession of some of the lands
covered under the preliminary decree.”
10. The subject property under appeal is in respect of Item No.252
falling in Schedule ‘A’ of the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 and
the subject land is in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village, Balanagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is the schedule property of the suit in
O.S. No.7 of 1958. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
09.01.2025 had closed the C.S. No.7 of 1958 wherein at Para No.40
observed that “As such, the submissions made on behalf of the
objectors are unsustainable and in that view of the matter, it can safely
be concluded that no lands are available for partition in item Nos.230 to
254 of Schedule ‘A’ attached to the preliminary decree. In the absence
of preliminary decree for item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule ‘A’, no final
decree could have been passed. Therefore, reports filed earlier are
without proper verification, are fictitious and the same are treated as
nullity and are hereby rejected.”
HAC, J & NVSK, J
35 OSA. No.1 of 2024
in
Application No.837 of 2013
in
C.S. No.7 of 1958
11. Since the C.S. No.7 of 1958 was closed with specific observation
that no lands are available for partition in Item No.252 and the
subject land in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District is the schedule property of the suit in O.S. No.7
of 1958 as such, no further adjudication is required in this appeal.
12. Accordingly, this O.S.A. No.1 of 2024 in Application No.837 of
2013 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 is disposed of leaving it open to the parties
to pursue their remedies as available under law, if they so feel
aggrieved by this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
___________________________
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date: 07-03-2025
LSK