Bandari Ramchander & Ors. vs Maitri Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. .
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1175
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10699 of 2013
BANDARI RAMCHANDER & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MAITRI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10701/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10685/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10700/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10682/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10683/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10684/2013
Signature Not Verified
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10686/2013
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.10.29
16:43:23 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO 10698/2013
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 44
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10681/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10695/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10696/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10697/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10706/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10702-10704/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10705/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10707/2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10708/2013
J U D G M E N T
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. The appellants before us have challenged the common impugned judgment
dated 16.04.2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 889/1998, 1976/1998, 2260/1998,
2267/1998, 4156/2000, 13650/2000, 3062/1998, 6240/1995, 3120/1998
and 8008/1992.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 44
2. Before we proceed to deal with the matter, we deem it appropriate to place
on record the fact that, on one of the earlier occasions, while hearing the
present batch of matters, we had heard all the learned Senior Counsel and
the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents, at
length. However, on a request made for making further submissions, we
had adjourned the matter. Subsequently, new Senior Counsel have been
engaged and arguments were made once again, which we permitted.
3. A strange plea was made on the day of reserving this batch of matters that
the matters shall not be proceeded with by this Bench. Though, the only
possible entity that could have raised an objection to proceed with
determination of the present appeals would be the respondent - State of
Telangana, however, such a plea was raised on behalf of one of the
appellants. Thereafter, wisdom having dawned upon, the said objection
was withdrawn, and arguments have been made, once again, through the
newly engaged Senior Counsel. Accordingly, we have elaborately heard
the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents, as well as
the written submissions.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 44
BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS
4. The lands involved in the present appeals are situated in Survey Nos. 100
and 101 of Village Miyapur, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, Telangana. These properties have their own chequered history.
Thus, it is not a surprise that the same position is sought to be extended
even before us.
5. It is a peculiar case where multiple individuals and societies claim their
title and possession through three different sources, by way of inheritance
and various conveyance deeds. The Special Court constituted under the
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘1982
Act’ ) in a set of Land Grabbing Cases (for short, ‘LGCs’ ) bearing LGC
Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994, declared the respondents therein as land grabbers
of the schedule land in Survey No. 100, of Village Miyapur,
Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. In these
LGCs, the erstwhile unified State of Andhra Pradesh was not made a party.
Another set of land grabbing cases in LGC Nos. 110/1994, 131/1995 and
136/1995 were filed, wherein, the State was duly impleaded as a party. The
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 44
same were dismissed, holding that the disputed lands were “ poramboke
lands” and belonged to the State.
6. Aggrieved by the findings rendered by the Special Court, the appellants
approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 889,
1976, 2260, 2267 of 1998 and Writ Petition Nos. 4156 and 13650 of 2000
challenging the judgment dated 31.12.1997 rendered in LGC Nos.
131/1995 and 136/1995. Further, Writ Petition Nos. 3062/1998 and
3120/1998 were preferred challenging the judgment dated 31.12.1997
rendered in LGC No. 110/1994, and Writ Petition No. 6240/1995 was
preferred challenging the judgment dated 06.02.1995, rendered in LGC
Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the impugned
judgment upheld the findings rendered by the Special Court in LGC Nos.
131 and 136 of 1995 and LGC No. 110/1994, and set aside the final
judgment in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994. The applicants and the private
respondents therein were declared as land grabbers, and it was held that
the title of the disputed lands vested in the State.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 44
8. Both the Special Court and High Court have dealt with the issues in
extenso, which are sought to be assailed before us. It is apposite to mention
that some of the appellant(s) have filed the present appeals, despite not
being parties before the Special Court and the High Court.
FACTUAL MATRIX
9. The chequered history qua the subject properties, in Survey Nos. 100 and
101 of Miyapur Village, spanning over an extent of 550 acres and 39
guntas , begins from the year 1912 onwards. After completion of the survey
of Miyapur Village in the year 1912, an extent of Ac. 277-05 in Survey
No. 100 and Ac. 273-34 in Survey No. 101 situated in Miyapur village
were duly classified as Sarkari poramboke . The same is reflected in the
classer register and Sethwar .
10. The Nizam of Hyderabad constituted a Paigah Commission headed by
Justice Reilly to inquire into the settlement of paigah estates and the inter
se claims. A Report was submitted by this Commission on 30.04.1927
recommending four villages, including Miyapur village, to be restored in
favour of one Rafi-un-nisa Begum, daughter of Kadiri Begum @ Quadri
Begum.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 44
“ REPORT OF THE PAIGAH COMMISSION OF 1345H
INTRODUCTION
xxx xxx xxx
Claims of descendants of Rashiduddin Khan's daughter.
42 ….The case of Rafi-un-nisa Begum is a little different. She claims 4
villages, which are now in the possession of the Sadr-ul-Moham of the Paigahs
as part of the Vikar-ul-Umarahi. Paigah. Ex. XLVIII, shows that two of these
villages were granted to Kadiri Begum, mother of Rafi-un-nisa Begum, by
Fakhruddin Khan in 1278 H., and Ex. XLVIII, that the other two were granted
to her by her father, Rashiduddin Khan, in 1297. It is now represented before
us for Rafi-un-nisa Begum that, if these 4 villages are restored to her with
mesne profits from 1316 H., when she lost possession of them she will not
claim any other share of the Paigah property or income. Exs. LXXIV, LXXIV-
A and LXXIV-B, however show that the claim of Rafi-un-nisa Begum to these
4 villages was considered by His Exalted Highness in 1333 H., and it was then
ordered that her claim to the two villages granted in 1278 H., could not be
admitted on the ground that the other two villages, Bahadurpalli and Miyapur,
were granted in 1297 H., in their stead. Rafi-un-nisa Begum has submitted to
that order till now and has drawn Rs. 200 a month under it in lieu of the income
of Bahadurpalli and Miyapur. In our opinion we cannot now reopen her
claim to the other two villages. But we recommend that Bahadurpalli and
Miyapur be restored to her as their income is considerably more than the
Rs. 200 a month which she has been receiving on account of them, though
in the circumstances we do not think that she can properly claim any
mesne profits on account of these villages….”
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)
th
11. Following the aforesaid report, H.E.H. Mir Osman Ali Khan, the VI
Nizam of Hyderabad, issued Firman Isfandar 1338 Fasli for the settlement
of paighas . As a result, the jagirs given to the heirs of the daughters of
Rashid-ud-Din Khan, including Rafi-un-nisa Begum, shall be given to
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 44
their present heirs. It would be pertinent to observe that the Reilly
Commission noted that the village Miyapur was part of the jagir granted
to Rafi-un-nisa Begum by her father Rashid-ud-Din Khan.
“Extra Ordinary Gazette
th
Vol. 60 Hyderabad – 15 Isfandar 1338 F., Corresponding to
th
5 Shaban 1347 H., Thursday No. 2
ORDER II-Co-SHARES OF THE PAIGAH AND THEIR SHARES
xxx xxx xxx
(5) The heirs of the daughters of Rashi-ud-Din Khan Shams-ul-Umra IV (i.e.,
the sisters of Khurshid Jah) are at present Bahadur Dil Jung, Qutb-un-Nisa
Begum and Rafi-un-Nisa Begum. They will not be given any share from the
Paigah income, but the Jagirs given away to the said sisters by their father and
grandfather, should be given to the present heirs with Wasilat or mesne
profits.”
xxx xxx xxx
12. The firman issued in 1929 had its own strings attached in the form of
certain conditions, which were to the effect that the immovable properties
of the paigahs shall not be sold, mortgaged or gifted without the sanction
of the Nizam .
“ Extra Ordinary Gazette
th
Vol. 60 Hyderabad – 15 Isfandar 1338 F., Corresponding to
th
5 Shaban 1347 H., Thursday No. 2
xxx xxx xxx
For the preservation of the Paigah Estates and perpetuation of the Paigah
family, the following general orders are also issued:-
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 44
1. The division of the Jagirs and immovable property of the Paigah into three
portions as pr awards of Salar Jung I and Mr. Ridsdale, regarding which no
one at present has any objection, will continue as at present; and in
th
accordance with my Firman dated the 10 Rajjab 1337 Hijri, the Jagirs of
the three Paigahs, and also the immovable properties connected therewith,
shall not be further divided either now or in future, nor shall their sale
or purchase, mortgage or gift be ever effected without my sanction.
The annual income of the said Jagirs and estates will however be
divisible in such a manner as is detailed in the accompanying orders.
2. In accordance with the opinion of the Egerton Commission what ever
property has hitherto been acquired, or article purchased or building
constructed out of the income of the Paigahs, will be considered the
property of the Paigahs and not that of any individual, and it will not be
liable to division like an inheritance.
xxx xxx xxx
4. If at any time the Government of Hyderabad should abolish the
Paigah forces, along with other Jagir forces, and levy cash
contribution in lieu thereof, the Sarf-I-Khans shall, in accordance
with the finding of the Reilly Commission, be entitled to a third part
of that compensation. This right and title of the Sarf-I-Khans is
reserved.”
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)
13. Twenty years down the line, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation 1358- Fasli (for short, “A.P. Abolition of
Jagirs Regulation” ) was introduced with effect from 15.08.1949,
abolishing all the jagirs . Consequently, a notification was issued on
07.09.1949 transferring the jagirs, including those where the subject
properties are situated, to the administration of the State of Hyderabad with
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 44
effect from 15.09.1949. Subsequently, the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act,
1952 ( for short, the ‘Atiyat Inquiries Act’ ) was also enacted with an
object to amend and consolidate the laws pertaining to Atiyat grants in
respect of Atiyat inquiries, with respect to the claims of succession to any
right, title or interest therein.
14. When the matter stood crystallised, as mentioned above, a strange
occurrence happened. In the pahanies of the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and
1952-53, the name of one ‘Raheemunissa Begum’, without referring to her
husband’s name, was found to be inserted as pattedar in Column No. 14.
This was done despite the entry in Column No. 11 as Poramboke and
Sarkari in Column No. 12.
15. The story did not end there. In 1955, under the proceedings initiated as per
the Atiyat Inquiries Act, Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan, son of
one Rafi-un-nisa Begum, had applied for the grant of
Muntakhab/Muntakhib for four paigah villages, including Miyapur
village, that were settled in favour of the heirs of Rafi-un-nisa Begum
under Firman Isfandar 1338 Fasli .
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 44
16. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Jagir Administrator,
Hyderabad, under the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area (Jagir
Commutation) Rules, 1950 (for short, ‘A.P. Jagirs Commutation
Rules’ ), issued a provisional and revised commutation award to Nawab
Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan, son of Rafi-un-nisa Begum, on
08.05.1957 and 08.04.1958, respectively.
Office of the Jagir Administrator
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad Deccan
xxx xxx xxx
REVISED COMMUTATION AWARD
(Provisional)
NAME OF THE JAGIRDAR Qaisaruddin Khan
NAME OF THE JAGIR Kesarjawlga etc. (4 villages)
Tq. Bhalki & Tq. West, Dists. Bidir & Hyderabad (Mixed regions)
KHATA NO. 505
VERIFICATION SLIP No. (1495/R) DATE 14-3-1958
In exercise of the power conferred by section 5 of the Hyderabad Jagirs
(Commutation) Regulation of 1359 F, the commutation sum in respect of the
above Jagir is determined provisionally as Rs. 1,20,303-12-5 as under:
xxx xxx xxx
C) Commutation Sum Rs. 1,20,303-19-5
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 44
There is neither Hissedar nor any Guzaredar in this jagir. The entire
commutation sum of Rs. 1,20,303-19-5 is payable to the jagirdar as under:
xxx xxx xxx
NB:- This cancels the award No. 1419 dated 08.05.1957
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Supdt. Examiner of A/cs Jagir Administrator
No. 1419/R-635
Dt. 8.4.58
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)
17. Without any reference to the aforesaid proceedings, the Tahsildar granted
permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short, ‘Hyderabad Tenancy Act’ ) to one
Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, to alienate 140 acres of land
in Survey No. 100 of Miyapur Village, on strength of the entry of her name
in the pahanies of 1950-53.
18. Coming back to the Muntakhab/Muntakhib proceedings initiated by the
Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan before the Nazim Atiyat , an order
was passed on 28.10.1968, issuing Muntakhib to Nawab Mohammad
Khaisaruddin Khan, granting him the Muntakhib for two villages.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 44
xxx xxx xxx
“….From the succession statement of Rafiunnisa Begum prepared by the
Board of Trust, Paigah Sir Vicarul Umra, it is evident that the four Villages of
Kaiser-Jawalga, Wakulgaon, Mianpur and Bahadurpalli belonging to
Rafiunnisa Begum were confirmed in the name of her son Kaisaruddin Khan
with the clarification that the status of Kaiseruddin Khan over these Villages
would be the same as that of Rafiunnisa Begum. This succession was
sanctioned through Firman Mubarak dated 10th Ramzan 1368 H.
“Out of the four Villages claimed by the Petitioner Mianpur and Bahadurpalli
are neither found in the claim of the Paigah nor are they included in the list of
Subgrants made by the Paigah, and as such these Villages cannot be confirmed
as sub-grants. The claim for two plan Maqtas Madinaguda and Mahboobpet
also falls as they are under the Village Mianpur”.”
xxx xxx xxx
19. Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin
Khan before the Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed on
29.12.1976 and Muntakhib was granted for four villages, including
Miyapur village.
“ Judgement in File No. NA2/78/1969 of Board of Revenue, dated 29.12.1976
xxx xxx xxx
ORDER: Arguments of the appellant and Asst. Govt. Pleaders were heard. It
is argued by the Advocate for the appellant that the Reilly Commission
recommended confirmation of all the four Villages in Para 42 of its report, that
the Firman of HEH, dt. 15-4-1338 F. confirmed this recommendation (Order
III Para 5) and that the Nazim Atiyat has erred in confirming only two Villages
leaving out the other two. The record shows that the Nazim Atiyat had not
confirmed the 2 Villages on the ground that the Paigah had not included them
in its claim. The Firman has been perused and it is seen therefrom that in
Order III, Para 5 the Villages given to the appellant's predecessors in title
are expressly confirmed. The Paigah had also sanctioned succession in
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 44
respect of these Villages. In these circumstances the Order passed by the
Nazim Atiyat is set aside and the appeal is allowed.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Before proceeding to the filing of the land grabbing cases before the
Special Court, it would be pertinent to mention here that one Rawoof-
Uddin Khan, claiming to be the son of Khaisaruddin Khan, initiated
proceedings before the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land
Records, seeking release of the four jagir villages, including Miyapur
village. The same was rejected vide an order dated 30.03.1995.
xxx xxx xxx
nd
“In continuation of this office reference 2 cited. The Collector, Ranga
Reddy District is informed that (4) Villages namely Kesarjawalge, Wakalgaon,
Miyapur and Bahdurpalli were confirmed to be Jagir Villages as Sub-grants of
Paigah Sir Vicar-Ul-Umrah given to Mohammed Khaisaruddin Khan as per the
Judgement of the Nazim Atiyat dated 28-10-68 in file No. 4/56/58 and the
Judgement of the Board of Revenue dated 29-12-1976 in file No. NA2/78/69.
After the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Jagirs Regulation 1358F and according to Section 6 of the said
Regulation, all the Jagirs in erstwhile Hyderabad state were taken over by the
Government and transferred to Diwani. From the date of transfer of Jagirs to
the Government the powers, rights and liabilities of the Jagirdars in to their
Jagirs were lapsed in favour of the Jagir Administrator.
As seen from the records of the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad the
commutation sum in respect of the above (4) Jagir Villages were determined
provisionally as Rs. 1.20.363-12 in favour of the Jagirdar. Khaisaruddin Khan
and as per the letter of the Nazim Atiyat bearing No. 1148, dated 25.10.57 the
payment of commutation amount to the Jagirdar Khaisaruddin Khan was
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 44
continued pending Inam inquiry in the above said 4 villages by issuing an
award No. 1495 dated 08.04.1958 to that effect.
In view of the above facts, it is clear that after the commencement of
the Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Abolition of Jagir Regulation 1358 F and
according to the Section 6 thereof all the Jagirs in Hyderabad State were
taken over by the Government and transferred to Diwani. In this case the
commutation sum was also paid to the Jagirdar. Hence the discontents of
deceased Jagirdar cannot claim for release of the above said villages and
change of entries in the Revenue Records since after the commencement
of the Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, the question of appointing or
recognizing any person to be as a Jagirdar whether in succession to a
deceased Jagirdar or otherwise does not arise.”
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)
21. The narrative further unfolds, as certain appellants trace their title to
Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Nawab Moin-ud-Dowla Bahadur.
According to their case, Miyapur village formed part of the Paigah estate,
and Survey Nos. 100 and 101 had been granted to her. They relied upon
historical documents relating to the Paigah estate, including the 1929
Firman (Ex. B-11) and the Book of Proceedings (Ex. B-37), as marked
before the Special Court, contending that the lands in question were the
personal properties of Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Nawab Moin-ud-
Dowla Bahadur, rather than Jagir lands vesting in the Government upon
the abolition of Jagirs in 1949. Following her death on 13.03.1970, the
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 44
property devolved upon her legal heirs, who subsequently executed a
registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of one Bandari
Ramachander, leading to agreements of sale being executed for portions
of the land, including 40 acres in favour of one party and 100 acres in
favour of another party.
22. While the matter stood thus, the appellants, claiming through
Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, filed LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of
1994, against the heirs of Khaiseruddin Khan with respect to land in
Survey No. 100, Miyapur. The said case was allowed in favour of the
appellants, claiming through Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam,
vide order dated 06.02.1995, without making the State a party to the said
proceedings, though it was observed that the lands stood transferred to the
Diwani under the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulations, 1358 Fasli .
23. Other appellants claiming through the same Raheemunnisa Begum, wife
of Abdul Salam, filed LGCs against the appellants, claiming through
Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, in LGC
No. 110/1994 with respect to 145 acres and 25 guntas of land in Survey
No. 101, Miyapur, LGC No. 131/1995 with respect to 40 acres in Survey
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 44
No. 100, Miyapur and LGC No. 136/1995 with respect to 30 acres in
Survey No. 100, Miyapur. In the said cases, the State was impleaded as a
party. Both the applicants and private respondents therein, were declared
to be land grabbers, and the State was declared to be the rightful owner of
the property.
24. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide impugned judgment
dated 16.04.2003, confirmed the view of the Special Court in LGC No.
110 of 1994, LGC Nos. 131 and 136 of 1995, while setting aside the view
taken in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994, and declared the State to be the
rightful owner of the property.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
25. It is apposite to discuss the relevant expressions and regulations under the
A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulations and the Atiyat Inquiries Act. Certain
relevant terminologies are being extracted from paragraph 93 of the
judgment of this Court in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 738 , for the said purpose.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 44
Relevant Terminologies
“93….
(i) Matruka: The property, both movable as well as immovable left by a
deceased muslim is called Matruka.
(ii) Paigah: It is a Persian (or Farsi) word which is used to denote pomp and
rank. The word is also translated to mean “right- hand man” or “footstool”.
(iii) Paigah Grant : It is an estate granted for the maintenance of the Army.
xxx xxx xxx
(v) Jagir : 1. Literally, the place of taking. An assignment to an individual of
the government share of the produce of a portion of the land. There were two
species of jaghires; one, personal, for the use of the grantee; another, in trust
for some public service, most commonly the maintenance of troops. [Whart.]
2. Annual allowance ordered by the Ruler of an erstwhile State to be paid to
the junior members of his family is not ‘ jagir’ . 3. Both in its popular sense and
legislative practice, the word “ jagir ” is used as connoting State grants which
conferred on the grantees rights “in respect of land revenue”.
But the word “Jagir” is defined in Regulation 2(f) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli to include a
Paigah, Samsthan part of a jagir, village Mukhta, village Agrahar, Umli and
Mukasa, whether granted by a Ruler or a Jagirdar, and as respects the period
commencing on the date appointed for a jagir under Section 5, means the estate
there-to-fore constituting a jagir;”
xxx xxx xxx
26. In this regard, we would like to clarify that the grant of paigah , would
mean an estate granted for the maintenance of the army. A jagir would
mean a grant of the estate qua the right in respect of land revenue.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 44
Therefore, a grant of jagir is not to be misconstrued as one of title over the
property.
The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation,
1358 F.
“Regulation 2. Definitions- In this Regulation unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject or context:-
xxx xxx xxx
(h) “Jagirdar” means the person who immediately before the date appointed
under section 5 was the holder (qabiz) of a jagir and includes the Amir of a
Paigah and the Vali of a Samasthan;”
27. Therefore, a jagirdar has been explained under Regulation 2(h) of the A.P.
Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, as a person who was the holder ( qabiz ) of
a jagir , immediately before the date appointed under Regulation 5.
“Regulation - 3. Appointment of Jagir Administrator:-
(1) The Government shall appoint a Jagir Administrator and as many
Assistant Jagir Administrators as he considers necessary for the due
administration of this Regulation.
(2) Any power conferred or duty imposed by this Regulation on the Jagir
Administrator may, save as otherwise provided in rules made thereunder, be
exercised or discharged by an Assistant Jagir Administrator appointed under
sub-section (1).”
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 44
“Regulation - 4. Appointment of Jagirdars to cease:-
After the commencement of this Regulation, no person shall be appointed to
be, or be recognised as, a Jagirdar whether in succession to a deceased Jagirdar
or otherwise.”
28. Regulations 3 and 4 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation pertain to
the appointment of a jagir administrator and the impact of the regulation,
after its commencement, on the erstwhile jagirdars . Such an administrator
has been appointed for the purpose of administration of the aforesaid
regulation. Thus, once the regulation comes into effect, all the jagirdars,
who were previously appointed, would cease to hold the said position, and
this applies to anyone who seeks succession to a deceased jagirdar .
29. It is thus clear from a perusal of the aforesaid regulations, that a jagirdar
is not a title holder, however, he enjoys the said position as per the wishes
of the Nizam . Further, as per Regulation 4 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs
Regulation, succession to a deceased jagirdar would not be automatic, as
the status of a jagirdar has been completely removed by the A.P. Abolition
of Jagirs Regulation, from the date of its commencement.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 44
“Regulation - 5. Appointment of dates for transfer of
administration:-
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Regulation, the
Government shall appoint a date for the transfer to Government of the
administration of jagirs and may appoint different dates for different jagirs.
(2) On the date so appointed for any Jagir (hereinafter referred to as the
appointed day) the Jagirdar shall make over the management of the Jagir to the
Jagir Administrator and shall furnish him with an account of the revenue
received and expenditure incurred on account of the Jagir in the current or, if
the Jagir Administrator so requires, in the immediately preceding year of
account, in so far as such revenue and expenditure are attributable to that year.
(3) If the Jagirdar fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2)
to the satisfaction of the Jagir Administrator, or obstructs the access of the Jagir
Administrator to any lands or buildings belonging to the Jagir, or fails to
furnish the Jagir Administrator with any documents relating to the
administration of the jagir, the Jagir Administrator may use or cause to be used
such force as may be necessary for the purpose of entering upon any such lands
or buildings of or securing possession of any such documents.
(4) If any Jagir, a jagirdar is not in existence on the appointed day, the
Jagir Administrator shall require the duties imposed upon the jagirdar by sub-
section (2) to be discharged by such one of the Hissedars as he may designate
for the purpose and references in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and in
sub-section (4) of Section 13 to the Jagirdar shall be read as referring to the
Hissedar so designated.”
“Regulation - 6. Powers, rights and liabilities as from the
appointed day:-
As from appointed day-
(1) The jagir shall be included in the Diwani and unless and until
included in a district constituted under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., shall be administered by the Jagir
Administrator;
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 44
(2) The powers, rights and liabilities of the Jagirdar in relation to the jagir
shall cease to be exercisable and enforceable by or against the Jagirdar, and
shall be exercisable and enforceable by or against the Jagir Administrator:
Provided that where the Jagirdar has on or after the 1st October, 1948,
entered into a contract in relation to a jagir the performance of which has not
been completed before the appointed day, the Jagir Administrator may
repudiate the contract if in his opinion it was not entered into in the normal
course of management of the jagir, and where the Jagir Administrator so
repudiates such contract any damages recoverable in respect of the
repudiation shall be recoverable from the Jagirdar alone;
Provided further that where the Jagirdar has on or after the 1st
January, 1949, effected a mortgage, lease or other transfer of property
included in the jagir and the Jagir Administrator is of opinion that the
mortgage, lease or other transfer was effected not in the normal course of
management of the jagir but in anticipation of legislation for the abolition of
jagirs, the Jagir Administrator may cancel the mortgage, lease, or other
transfer and any damages recoverable in respect of the cancellation shall be
recoverable from the jagirdar alone;
(3) all expenditure incurred by the Jagir Administrator on the
administration of a jagir shall be defrayed from the revenue of the State;
(4) no Jagirdar shall recover or receive any customary or other dues from
any tenant or resident of the Jagir;
(5) no Jagirdar shall in his capacity as such be required to pay the
educational cess, or the cess for the maintenance of the Jagirdars' College, or
any other cess imposed by Government;
(6) no Peshkash, Haq-e-Malikana or pan shall be payable by a Jagirdar in
respect of the Fasli year 1359 or any subsequent year;
(7) the share of a Jagirdar or Hissedar in the net income of a Jagir, and
the maintenance allowance of a Guzarayab, shall be inalienable save with the
previous sanction of Government; not more than one half of such share or
allowance shall be liable to attachment and sale in any one year of account in
execution of a decree and no part thereof shall be so liable, save with the
previous sanction of Government;
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 44
(8) if a Jagirdar or Hissedar dies, his share in the net income of the Jagir,
including his share in the Haq - e - Intazam, shall devolve in accordance with his
personal law:
Provided that in the case of a Muslim Jagirdar or Hissedar the principal of
Hijb Hirman shall not apply and that in the case of a male Hindu Jagirdar his
share shall be deemed to be his separate property;
(9) If a Jagirdar or Hissedar dies and leaves no heir entitled to
inherit, his share, in the case of a jagir granted by a ruler, shall lapse to
Government, and in the case of a Jagir granted by a Jagirdar shall be
added to the gross revenue of the Jagir of the grantor.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. Regulation 5 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation facilitates a
specified date for transfer of administration. Under Regulation 6 of the
A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, such a jagir shall be included in the
diwani , meaning thereby, that if a Jagirdar or Hissedar dies, leaving no
heir entitled to inherit his share in the case of a jagir granted by a ruler, the
same shall lapse to the Government and, therefore, would become property
of the State. Further, in a case where a jagir is granted by a jagirdar, the
same would be added to the gross revenue of the jagir of such grantor.
“Regulation - 17. Home farms:-
(1) Nothing in this Regulation shall affect the home farm (seri
Khudkasht ) of a Jagirdar or Hissedar which, subject to any law for the
time being in force, he shall continue to hold-
(a) where the village in which the farm is situated has been brought
under survey and settlement whether before or after the appointed day,
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 44
in accordance with the terms recorded at the time of such survey and
settlement;
(b) for so long as the village has not been brought under survey and
settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions prevailing
immediately before the appointed day.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) the extent and boundaries of the home
farm of a Jagirdar or Hissedar shall be such as the Jagir Administrator may by
order determine:
Provided that no forest or waste land shall be included in any home
farm.”
(emphasis supplied)
“Regulation - 18. Personal property and liabilities not affected:-
Nothing in this Regulation shall affect:-
(a) the personal property of Jagirdar or Hissedar or any property other
than the jagir held by a Jagirdar on behalf of the Hissedars, or
(b) any liability of a Jagirdar or Hissedar in respect of any loan taken
from Government.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. The exception to Regulations 5 and 6 is found within Regulation 17 of the
A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, with respect to home farms and in
Regulation 18, with respect to personal properties of a Jagirdar or
Hissedar which, subject to any law for the time being in force, he shall
continue to hold. The onus to prove that the property is a home farm or a
personal property lies on the person who asserts the same, as the said
regulation is only an exception. This is a limited right conferred with the
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 44
sole aim of permitting a jagirdar to continue the enjoyment of his personal
properties and home farms, as it is presumed that such properties would be
in the physical control and enjoyment of the Jagirdar . Therefore,
Regulations 17 and 18 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, carve
out an exception for a village which forms part of a jagir estate, brought
under the survey and settlement to a specified extent of land, that is proved
as a home farm or a personal property.
“Regulation - 20. Appeal and Revision:-
(1) A party aggrieved by any order passed by the Jagir Administrator
under this Regulation may appeal against the order to Government or to
such authority as Government may appoint in this behalf.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (2) shall be filed within 60 days of the date
on which the aggrieved party is informed of the order against which he appeals:
Provided that the appellate authority may for sufficient cause entertain an
appeal filed after the expiration of the said 60 days.
(3) Government or such authority as Government may appoint in this
behalf may revise any order passed by the Jagir Administrator.
Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed in
revision without giving that person an opportunity of being heard.”
(emphasis supplied)
“Regulation - 21. Judicial proceedings:-
(1) Save with the previous sanction of Government, no civil or criminal
proceedings shall be instituted against the Jagir Administrator or any other
public servant in respect of anything done or purporting to have been done
under this Regulation.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 44
(2) All claims relating to a jagir or to any share in the income thereof,
whether arising under this Regulation or otherwise, shall, subject to this
Regulation but notwithstanding any existing law, be filed in, and decided
by, the appropriate civil court:
Provided that any proceeding pending at the commencement of this
Regulation before an Atiyat Court or, before a Commission or any other
authority shall be completed in accordance with the existing law as if this
Regulation had not been enacted.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. Regulation 20 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation provides the
mechanism for appeal and revision, while Regulation 21 bars independent
civil or criminal proceedings, except with the prior sanction of the
Government.
33. This Court in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. (supra) , on the understanding
of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, was pleased to hold the
following:
“ 30. Twenty years after this report, the political atmosphere changed and
the Jagirs and the Paigahs were abolished by means of the Jagir Abolition
Regulations (Hyderabad Regulation No. 69 of 1358 F) with effect from
15.08.1949. The Jagirs and the properties connected with the Jagirs were
taken over by the Jagir Administrator and the Jagirdars were declared
entitled only to the commutation amount. The other properties and estates
unconnected with the Jagirs, however, were allowed to remain with
the Jagirdars.”
(emphasis supplied)
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 44
34. A similar view was earlier taken while interpreting Regulations 4, 5, 9, 10,
11, 14 and 21 of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation in Ahmad-Un-
Nissa Begum v. State , AIR 1952 Hyderabad 163 , by the Full Bench of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, as it was at the relevant
point of time.
“15. During this period, two important Regulations were passed. By the
Regulation No. XLI(41) of 1358 Fasli , the estate of the Ruler known as
‘Sarf-e-Khas’ was merged in the ‘Diwani’ on 5-2-1949. Then by another
Regulation No. LXIX(69) of 1358 Fasli which is called the Hyderabad
(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation and came into force from the date of its
publication in the Jarida on Meher 15, 1358 Fasli (15-8-1949) all jagir
tenures were incorporated into State lands. No person under S. 4 of this
Regulation could after its commencement be appointed or recognised as a
Jagirdar whether in succession or otherwise. Section 5 directed a date to
be notified for the transfer to the Government of the administration of the
jagirs and on the date the jagirdars were to make over their managements
to the Jagir Administrator. Such a date was notified.
Section 6 lays down that the jagirs shall be included in the ‘Diwani’ and
unless and until included in a district shall be administered by the Jagir
Administrator and the powers, rights and liabilities in relation to such
estates shall cease to be exercisable by the jagirdar and shall be exercisable
by the Administrator. By sub-s. (7) of the Section, the share of a Jagirdar
or Hissedar in the net income of his jagir is inalienable save with the
previous sanction of the Government and one half of such shares or
allowances is liable to attachment in execution of decrees. Then sub-s. (8)
makes the shares in the net income heritable according to the personal law of
the persons entitled and according to sub-s. (9) in the absence of any heir, they
are to lapse to the Government in case of grants by the Ruler.
The Regulation after providing for the deduction of certain percentage of
the gross revenue to the Government for the administration expenses allows in
ss. 10 and 11 distribution of the balance among the persons entitled. By s. 14,
such payments are called interim maintenance allowances which would be
payable until the commutation for the jagirs is determined. Under sub-s. (2) of
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 44
s . 21, all claims relating to a jagir or to any shares in the income
notwithstanding any existing law are made justiciable by the Civil Court;
but the proviso saves pending succession proceedings. As it is important, I
shall quote it in extenso :
“Provided that any proceeding pending at the commencement of this
Regulation before an Atiyat Court or before a Commission or any
authority shall be completed in accordance with the existing law as if
this Regulation had not been enacted.”
12. The effects of these Regulations are that all existing Jagir tenures in
the State were merged in the State lands and the State alone became the
ultimate landlord, and the rights to receive allowances became statutory,
heritable and justiciable. Had it not been for the proviso to sub-s. (2) of S.
21, it could have been argued with some justification that the rights to receive
interim allowances and compensation required no special sanctions by
acceptance of the recommendations of the tribunals in pending succession
cases; for under sub-s. (3) of S. 9, the heirs of the deceased jagirdars are
declared to be entitled to their shares in the income after the deduction of
expenses.”
(emphasis supplied)
Provisions under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries
Act, 1952:
“Section 2 – Definitions:- (1) In this Act unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context-
xxx xxx xxx
(b)“ Atiyat grants ” means -
(i) in the case of jagirs abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 F (LXIX of 1358 F) the
commutation sums payable in respect thereof under the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulations, 1359
F (XXV of 1359 Fasli);
(ii) inams to which the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955 (VII of 1955) is not applicable;
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 44
(iii) in the case of inams abolished under the The Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (VIII of 1955) the
compensation payable under that Act;
(iv) cash grants to which the Hyderabad Abolition of Cash Grants Act,
1952 (XXXIII of 1952) is not applicable;
(v) cash grants temporarily continued under the Hyderabad Abolition of
Cash Grants Act, 1952 (XXXIII of 1952);
(vi) in the case of cash grants abolished under the Hyderabad Abolition
of Cash Grants Act, 1952 (XXXIII of 1952), subject to payment of
compensation, the compensation payable in respect thereof;.
(c)“ Muntakhabs and Vasikas ” means documents issued by competent
authorities as a result of inam or succession enquiries held under the Dastoor
ul Amal Inams or other Government orders on the subject and issued by way
of continuance or confirmation of Atiyat grants;”
35. Section 2(1)(b) of the Atiyat Inquiries Act defines ‘ Atiyat grant’, being the
commutation sums payable in respect of jagirs . This Act is to be read in
consonance with the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, along with the
A.P. Jagirs Commutation Rules. In other words, this enactment has been
made to facilitate the payment of commutation sum to the erstwhile
jagirdars .
36. ‘ Muntakhabs’ and ‘Vasiqas’ have been defined under Section 2(1)(c) of
the Atiyat Inquiries Act. These are documents issued by the competent
authorities, pursuant to the inam or succession inquiries made for the
purpose of continuation and confirmation of Atiyat grants. In other words,
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 44
this is a document which enables a successor to get the Atiyat grant under
the Atiyat Inquiries Act.
37. A conjoint reading of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation and the A.P.
Jagirs Commutation Rules along with the Atiyat Inquiries Act, would
clearly reiterate the fact that the entitlement of an erstwhile Jagirdar or the
muntakhabs, would be confined only to the payment of the amount of
commutation. To put it differently, a holder of the Atiyat grant either on
the basis of a muntakhab or otherwise, by way of an order of the competent
authority, would be entitled to receive the payment, so computed. Thus, it
is a commutation sum payable as a one-time payment in the nature of
compensation, for abolition of such jagirdari rights which, by their own
nature, are both restrictive and limited.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
38. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, claiming
through Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan, made the following
submissions. The fact that the village in question was a paigah village is
admitted by the State, as is also the status of their predecessor-in-title, as
the jagirdar . Once such status is not in dispute, the entitlement would
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 44
follow. Their entitlement is based upon an oral gift executed in their favour
by the Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan himself. The Special Court
could not have passed the judgment without impleading them as parties.
The House Committee appointed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative
Assembly submitted a Report, wherein, it was observed that Government
interest is not involved in the dispute between various parties. The said
Report of the House Committee was placed on record before the High
Court, however, the same has not been considered.
39. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, claiming
through Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, submitted that the
pahanies along with the official revenue records would enure to the benefit
of the appellants. The State, having recognised the claim of the appellants
through subsequent conduct in granting permission to alienate the land
under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, land acquisition proceedings, ceiling
proceedings, etc., acts as an estoppel against them. In the proceedings
initiated under the Atiyat Inquiries Act by Nawab Mohammad
Khaisaruddin Khan, they were not parties, and they continued to be in
possession. Another submission, which had never been raised before the
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 44
Special Court and the High Court, has been made before us to the effect
that the lands in question were purchased in an auction and were conveyed
to Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, by way of a will. Both the
Courts erred in rejecting the documents relied upon by them. In any case,
on the plea of adverse possession, they are entitled to relief.
40. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, claiming through
Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, submitted
that Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, is the
rightful pattedar over the land in question and the revenue entries are with
respect to her and not Raheemuissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam. The
Civil Court has held that the land in question belongs to Asman Jahi
Paigah and the character of right is heritable Matruka in nature. Therefore,
the grant in their favour under the Firman 15 Isfandar 1338F and
subsequent events clearly support the claim of the appellants .
41. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent - State of Telangana
submits that none of the appellants has any right over the land in question.
Admittedly, the commencement of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation
is not in doubt and, therefore, in tune with Regulation 5 of the said
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 44
regulation, vesting has, in fact, taken place. It is nobody’s case that the
vesting has not been done. Even otherwise, the grant by the Nizam being
conditional, followed by the abolition under the said regulation, the
appellants, claiming through Khaisaruddin Khan, have absolutely no
right. He is estopped from raising any right to title that is not even available
under the grant of jagir . Having received the commutation amount, any
contrary stand would be an abuse of the process of law.
42. Insofar as the appellants claiming through Raheemunissa Begum, wife of
Abdul Salam, are concerned, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent - State of Telangana that they would also not
have any right, as both the Courts have concurrently rejected the reliance
placed on pahanies and other revenue documents. It is rather strange how
a lady could be termed as a pattedar , that too, over a large extent of land,
which is not only classified as government land, but also statutorily stood
vested in the State. A plea of adverse possession would also not be
available in view of Exhibit A-36, placed before the Special Court. Such a
plea also cannot be raised when relief is sought based on the title. There is
no specific reference to any date qua animus possidendi. In any case, there
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 44
is no question of adverse possession, when proceedings have already been
concluded under the jagir abolition regulation. The contention that the said
property was purchased in auction and, later on, bequeathed to
Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, by way of a will cannot be
gone into, as it was never raised before the Courts below.
43. Qua the appellants, claiming through Raheemunissa Begum, wife of
Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, it is submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent - State of Telangana that they have
no right over the subject lands, as they have raised contradicting claims
before the Courts below. The firman being relied upon by them gives no
right of title, and the High Court was right in rejecting the plea of Zat Jagir
as misfounded and, in view of the fact that it was never raised before the
Special Court. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior
Counsel submits that all the pleas and material that were not placed before
the Special Court and have been placed on record for the first time before
this Court cannot be taken into consideration.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 44
FACTUAL ANALYSIS
44. The facts, as narrated, indicate a sorry state of affairs. Clearly, an attempt
is being made by the appellants to usurp the lands vested in the State of
Telangana by claiming that the subject lands belong to them. The fact that
the lands in Miyapur Village were declared as sarkari poramboke, much
earlier in the year 1912 itself, is not in dispute. Similarly, there cannot be
any challenge to the Report of the Reilly Commission and the Firman
Isfandar, 1338 . While the firman itself restricts the rights vested in a
jagirdar , the nature of the grant is also restrictive. Hence, there cannot be
any claim to the title on that basis.
45. Even the said limited rights, transferred by the firman, have been
statutorily removed, duly, by introduction of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs
Regulation dated 15.08.1949. A Notification No. 8 dated 07.09.1949 was
also issued by the Revenue Department transferring the administration of
paigah lands to the Hyderabad State (Jagir Administrator) with effect from
15.09.1949. It is only thereafter, that the pahanies and other revenue
records have been interpolated, as rightly noted by both the Special Court
and the High Court.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 44
46. In this background, the appellants claiming through Nawab Mohammad
Khaisaruddin Khan are estopped and barred from raising any plea towards
title over the subject lands, in view of the concluded proceedings which
were initiated at his instance before the Nazim Atiyat and, further, in the
appeal preferred by him before the Board of Revenue. The determination
and receipt of the commutation amount disentitles Nawab Mohammad
Khaisaruddin Khan or his successors from claiming any sort of title or
interest over the subject lands. The final nail in the coffin is the
unchallenged dismissal of the application preferred by the son of Nawab
Khaisaruddin Khan, seeking restoration of the subject lands.
47. The inclusion of the name of Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam,
as a pattedar, notwithstanding the finding with respect to the nature of the
land recorded as “ dongala gutta kancha poramboke” in the khasra
pahanies of 1954 - 55, appears to be quite strange. At this juncture, we
may state that not only the revenue entries, but also the proceedings before
the Special Court in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994, were in total ignorance
of the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, followed by the consequential
Atiyat Inquiries Act.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 44
48. In other words, these inclusions in the revenue records were done after the
subject lands were vested in the State, without the knowledge of the
administrator under the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs Regulation. These
suspicious circumstances are well established by the inherent
discrepancies in the pahanies themselves, coupled with the evidence of
the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined as RW-8 in LGC No.
131/1995, before the Special Court.
49. The mystery gets compounded further by the absence of any order of
transfer or mutation, facilitating such an entry in favour of Raheemunissa
Begum, wife of Abdul Salam. There is no corresponding entry regarding
transfer of the land or change of mutation from the Government in the
faisal patti and pucca book for Survey Nos. 100 and 101, a practice which
is mandatory, as per the evidence available through the statement of the
Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined as RW-8 in LGC No.
131/1995, before the Special Court. These entries have been made without
any authority or jurisdiction. They constitute an act of nullity. There is no
formal order facilitating the said entries in the revenue records. The
officials, who allegedly made the revenue entries, had no authority to
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 37 of 44
undertake the said exercise, particularly, in the teeth of the A.P. Abolition
of Jagirs Regulation, followed by the transfer of lands in favour of the
State.
50. We find it quite surprising, as to how a woman could have been given such
a vast extent of land as a pattedar , at the relevant point in time, that too,
after vesting had already taken place in favour of the State. It is to be noted
that the subsequent inspection dated 19.10.1995 made by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Serilingamapally, clearly stated that the land was found
to be a wasteland and covered by boulders, and there was an absence of
any visible agricultural operations or possession in favour of any party,
including that of the said Raheemunissa Begum.
51. In view of the same, we find that the revenue entries in her favour are bogus
and not genuine, as it is a case of fraud orchestrated by persons in collusion
with the revenue officials. We find no perversity in the findings recorded
by both, the Special Court in LGC Nos. 110/1994, 131/1995 and 136/1995,
and the High Court on this aspect.
52. There is absolutely no power to record the name of an individual as a
pattedar , through a mere entry, sans any proceedings. Therefore, looking
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 44
from any perspective, there is absolutely no right in favour of
Raheemunnissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, who has also not proved
any factum of adverse possession though, the said plea itself is not
otherwise available.
53. The permission granted by the Tehsildar to Raheemunnissa Begum, wife
of Abdul Salam, to alienate the said property cannot be considered as valid
in the eyes of law, as there is absolutely no reference, either to the A.P.
Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, or to the Atiyat proceedings. Admittedly,
the Administrator and Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan have not
been heard and, in any case, it is nothing but a nullity, being without
jurisdiction. The acquisition proceedings, treating it as a private property
belonging to Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, that were later
on quashed by the High Court, will not estop the State, as the title of the
landowner was neither disputed nor determined therein. The Report of the
House Committee does not create any right nor convey any benefit. It is of
no consequence in the light of the discussion made on merits.
54. For the very first time before this Court, the appellants claiming through
Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, are raising a plea that the
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 39 of 44
property in question was purchased in an auction by one Basith Khan in
the year 1918, and was later bequeathed to one Raheemunissa Begum, wife
of Abdul Salam, by way of a Will between the years 1943-44. The said
issue was neither raised before the Special Court nor the High Court. We
are of the opinion that the veracity of the said document itself is in doubt,
as no such reference to the same has been made in the Report of the Reilly
Commission. Merely because the documents have been produced, it
would, ipso facto, not mean that they are genuine. We are dealing with
proceedings emanating from the designated Special Court. These
documents have not gone through the process of admissibility, relevancy
and proof. Thus, we find it rather strange that there is absolutely no
reference to the alleged auction or the will in any one of the earlier
proceedings, including the Report of the Reilley Commission, and even
thereafter. We further hold that the proceedings starting from the year 1912
are public in nature and, therefore, there is no dispute over them. In such
view of the matter, reliance cannot be placed upon any of these documents,
which are contrary to the State’s documents spanning over a century.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 44
55. Insofar as appellants claiming through Raheemunissa Begum, wife of
Nawab Moinuddowla are concerned, we are again of the opinion that there
is absolutely no case which has been made out in favour of the appellants.
Even assuming that the land was settled in favour of their predecessor-in-
interest in Firman Isfandar 1338 Fasli , it would be of no avail to them, as
no title was transferred by the firman and any interest that stood transferred
was also extinguished by virtue of the operation of A.P. Abolition of Jagirs
Regulation. Any subsequent proceeding or order in their favour would be
of no use to them, in view of the findings given above. Our observations
made earlier with respect to Khaisaruddin Khan, would also equally apply
to the case of the appellants claiming through Raheemunnisa Begum, wife
of Moinuddowla.
56. When the said claimant herself did not have a valid title, as her claim itself
was based upon the firman , the lands could not have been alienated by her
in favour of the appellants claiming through her. Zat Jagir means property
that is personally granted to an individual. It is different from home-farms
or personal property, as found in Regulations 17 and 18 of the A.P.
Abolition of Jagirs Regulation. The contention that the lands are Zat Jagir
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 44
and, therefore, would be unaffected by the A.P. Abolition of Jagirs
Regulation was rightly rejected by the High Court, as such a plea was
neither taken, nor was any evidence led by the parties before the Special
Court. Although this was sufficient to dismiss the contention, the High
Court additionally examined the said submission on merits and found no
substance in it, as what could be granted is only the revenue of lands . In
any case, this issue is a question of fact, which has not been proved.
57. The documents relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent – State of Telangana, i.e., starting from the year 1912
onwards, would clearly disentitle any relief in favour of the appellants
claiming through Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Moinuddowla.
58. An act of fraud vitiates all solemn acts. These appeals depict a clear case
of fraud committed to usurp the lands vested in the State. As the title of the
State is clearly established and also in light of the submissions made on
that issue, any incidental submission would be of no consequence and,
therefore, not relevant.
59. At the cost of repetition, we hold that the Special Court and the High Court
have considered all the submissions made and documents relied upon in
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 44
extenso . The scope of the Special Court is rather wide and extensive, and
it has taken into consideration the relevant materials, except in the first set
of Land Grabbing Cases where the State had not been made a party, a
mistake which has been subsequently rectified by the High Court, in the
impugned judgment. In fact, the said mistake was rectified by the Special
Court itself, in the second set of Land Grabbing Cases.
60. Suffice it to state that no grounds have been made out to allow these
appeals. As we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment of the
High Court, warranting any interference, we are inclined to dismiss all the
appeals.
61. While dismissing the appeals, we also take note of the further development
with respect to lands being transferred in favour of Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority (‘HUDA’). Incidentally, we are not going into the
inter se dispute within the claims.
62. We do clarify that the State was not made a party in LGC Nos. 21/1994
and 22/1994. Hence, the decision made by the Land Grabbing Court will
not have any bearing. In any case, the High Court, having considered all
the cases together, no technical plea can be raised on that ground as well.
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 44
63. We also do not find any reason to invoke equities in favour of the parties.
As discussed above, it is a clear-cut case of attempts being made to grab
valuable lands vested in the State. As the very title of the appellants itself
is lacking, there is no question of granting any equitable reliefs.
64. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
65. No order as to costs.
66. Consequently, all the applications for impleadment/intervention stand
dismissed.
67. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………. J.
(M. M. SUNDRESH)
……….…………………………. J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2026
Civil Appeal No. 10699/2013 & Connected Matters Page 44 of 44