Mohammed Khadeer and another v. The State of Telangana and 4 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SARATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-27. Mohammed Khadeer and another v. The State of Telangana and 4 others. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
\'i' [ 33021 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NOS: 9480 OF 2021 AND 3771 OF 2022 W. P. NO: 9480 OF 2021 Between: 1- Mohammed Khadeer, S/o late Mohammed Yaqub, Aged about 57 years, Occupation, Business, R/o H. No. B-1-398/M/187, Paramount Hills, Towli Chowki, Hyderabad. 2. Adam Prem Kumar, S/o late A. Shankar Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occupation, Business, Rl/o H. No. 10-5-342/34, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad. .. PETITIONERS AND '1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Local Officer cum District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad ..
RES,ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\ilandamus declaring the proceedings No. 8212544312017 , daled 0110412021, passed by the second respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and consequently to aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No. 8212544312017, dated 0110412021 , passed by the second respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI H. VENU GoPAL, SENIoR I oUNSEL FoR counser ror the Respono. nt', siH. t'. tH[VXifr:,:^'J" F( R REVENUE W. P. NO: 377 1 0F 2022 Between: 1 Mohammed Khadeer, S/o.
late l\,4onammed yaqub, /. r ed about 57 years. ,iowri R/o u r{o e r_jga7M)l#. "'r,, r ,mounr Hils 3fr3;lui,filo"Prt'jness 2 Adam Prem Kumar. Sin late A Shankar Rao. Ag: i about 48 vears Business. R/o i r. r". 'iij s. :a);si North Lailaguda S::Jffi::jl". ... PETITIONERS AND , rep by its principal Secretary, F,( venue J::. :,,:frit. r"JEHftr Department, 2. The Local Officer cum ll. rstrici Collector. Hyderabad Distr t . , Hyderabad. 3 The^Tahsildar, Hrnayathnaqar, Hvderabari :i+iilE:qni. 'td'. 1y#iU:*:"1,,'*;Ki? {i;. i. ;t:i? ,",Xt,,;Ji; 5 Sri Srinivas Vishwanarh. s/o plliii'"""rs r 3-5-75, Ftat ]ed Maior. Rio H No No. 30: ls$affi ";a[;;;;iJin" ri Aoa rtments' Beside Ft'""";;lEh Raimohalla. Hyoeraoau. "u",n ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Artrcre 226 0f the constitution of rndia raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the l- i rh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more pzrr icularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the Letter bearing Lr. , . 82r25443t2017, dated 02. 12. 2021, issued by the second respondent, as illegal, i rbitrary,nrala fide and consequen y to aside the same. lA NO:1 oF 2022 Petition under Section i 5 r cpc praying that in the circu r stances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition the High court nr, y be preased to suspend the Letter hearing Lr. No. B2l2S443t2O17, dated 02. 12. 2(21, issued by the second respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the irr :rest of justice. r IA NOI 20F 2022 Between: 1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.
The Local Officer cum District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar' Himayathnagar' Hyderabad ... pETrroNER'/RESpoNDENTS AND '1 . Mohammed Khadeer and another, S/o late Mohammed Yaqub, Aged about 57 years, Occupation. Business, R/o H. No. B-1-3981M1187 , Paramount Hills, Towli Chowki, Hyderabad- 2. Adam Prem Kumar, S/o late A. Shankar Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occupation. Business, R/o H,No. 10-5-342/34, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS 3. Sn Shiva Shankar, S/o lvl-Chandraiah, Aged. Major, occ. not known to the petitioners R/o H. No. 4-7-256, Esamiya Bazar, Namiya Lande, Hyderabad. 4. Sri Srinivas Vishwanath, S/o not known to the petrtroners Aged. Major, Rio H. No 3-5-75, Flat No 30'1 , Rajashri Apartments, Beside Padmashali Bhavan, Rajmohalla' Hyderabad 500 001 ... RES'. NDENTS/RES'.
NDENTS Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim directions, dated 1910512022 passed in l. A. No.. 1 of 2021 in W. P,No. 94B0 of 2021 and IA. No. 1 of 2022 in W. P. No. 3771 of 2022 and also to dismiss the writ petrtion as devoid of merits with costs- Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI H. VENU GOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N. MUKUND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'l TO 3: SMT. S. SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. S: SRI R. K. G. BHATIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r SK, J W. P. No. 9. 180 ol 2r) I & 3771o1 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ] ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARI TH W. P. No. 948O of 2O2L and. 3771 of i,. 122 Date:27. OL. 2o26 Between Mohammed Khadeer and another Petitioners And State of Teiangana rep.
by its Principal Secre -, ly, Revenue Department and others. ? espondents COMMON ORDER: As both these i;r,,rit petitions arise olrr cf the same subject propertJ/ and the parties are sirnilzrr, t: :y are being disposed of by this comrnon order. 2. Both these writ petitions are hled qr_re ;tioning the proceedings No . 82 I 25443 I 20 17 dated 0 \ . O4 . ,. ). )2 1 and the letter No. B2 /25443/2O17 dated 02. 12. 2021 i;;ued by the respondent No. 2-Local Officer-cum-District r)ollector as illegal and arbitrary. SK,. J W. P. No. 9480 of 2021 & 3771. of 2022 /) Counsel . ) Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Senior learned counsel for the represerlting Sri N. N4ukunrl Reddl', lcamed Assistant petitioncrs and Smt s. Slavantl. ri, respondent Nos l for Rcvetlue for the Governtnent Pleadcr to 3 and perused the material on record 4.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioncrs arc absolute owners and possessors of theeasternportionofthchousepropertybearing sq' yards out of Municipal No. 3-2-374 admeasurin g 657 '75 total extent of 1286. 3 sq' vards situated at Chappal Bazar' (for short 'the subject property') Kachiguda, Hyderabad Khan frorn lvlrs Fareedunnisa Begum having purchased her son and two daughters W/o late Ghulam Ahrned I(han, of deed bearing Document No'487 through registered salc 2olgd. atedoS. o2. 2olg. originallythesaidhouseproperty was purchased by late Ghulam Hussain Khan through vid'e document registered sale deed dated 16'1O'1325 Fasli V at page Nos'12 to 14 total No. 1934 Book I, Volume sq. yards along with three constructed ----admeasuring2143 Kachiguda' Chappal Bazar buildings situated at ' SK, J W. P. No. 9480 of :- l1 & 3771 ol 2022 Hyclerabad and after his death, his wife Afz.
al't tnisa Begum ancl sons namely Gulam Ahmed Khan and FI I tiicl AIi Khal and claughter Nizamunr-ris:r Bcgum have suc,'r :,lcrf the s:rid property. The l-rusbanci of the vendor ol the p: itioners, Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Khan, had inherited thc srr, t:ct property through the conrpromise dccree passed in C. (l (1. A. No. 27 of 2OO7 on the file of this Court dated 04 . - l. 2O 13 liled against the Judgment and Decree dated 1.. 11. 2006 in O. S. No. 74 of 2000 on the fiie ol I Aciditior-rzLl Uetropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additionai (l (lf Judge, Hyderabad, filed lor partition 5 Learned Senior Counscl for the peti : rr rers fu|ther submits that since the date of purchase ,r thc subject property, the petitioners are in continuous p(:session ar-rd enjoyment of the said property. Their vendr>r', are par. ing the property tax, electricity bills and nater cl r lges for the last several decades. The Town Survey Regisl-() also shows the owner of the house bearing Nos.
3-2-374 tut I 3-2-3741 I as Ghulam Hussain Khan S/o Gulam AhrrLi,, Khan ernd Afzah. )nnisa Begum. The petitioners have obta. ,. t:d building SK, J \\i. P. No. 9480 of 2021 & 3771 ot 2022 permission vide permit No. 2 dated lCl6 lO24OB/2021 t6. o2. 202t. 6 Learned Senior Counsei for the petitioners further submits that basing on thc representation of the People's represcntatives, the respor-rdent No. 2-Local Oflficer-cum- District Collector issued notice datcd 02. O2. 202 1 under Section 7 of Telangala State Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act, 1974) to the petitioners, u'ho in turn have submitted their replies on 08. 02. 2021 and la. O2. 2o2l. The respondent No. 2 without following due process of 1aw as contemplated under the Act, 1974 has passed the impugned ordcr vide proceedings No. B2l25443l2Ol7 dated O1. O4. 2021 directing the respondent No. 3 to take possession of the land under Section 9 of the Act, 1974 and also issued the impugned letter No. B2 dated 02.
12. 2021 referring the 12544312017 matter to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for adjudication under Section 11(3) ol t}:. e Act, 1974 i+" SK, J W. P. No. 9480 of 2l I & 3771 tl 2022 7 Learned Senior Counsel for the petjti ,ners further submits that though the respor-Ldent No. 4 ir: v\r. P. No. 3771 of 2022 filed suit for injunction with respecl t ) the subject property, the same was dismissed and he a1s , tiled a case in Cr. No. 32l of 2Ol9 on the file of Kachiguda 'olice Station arrd the sarne was also closed on 10. 12. 2019 r ue to lack of evidence. The respondent No.
2 without i ilorving due procedure as contempiated under Section 8 of Act, ) Lhe 1974 by filing a suit for declaration of Ciover tment rights and recovery of possession has passed t1-re imtr ngned order He submits that the subject property is a pri'ate property owned and possessed by the petitioners and rior to them, ; their vendors were in lawlul possession and rnjoyment of the same for the last several decades and u rr l,:r Lhe cuise of the impugned order dated 01. O4. 2021 , llr respondent No. 2 is trying to dispossess the petitioners frct r the subject property, which is illegal and arbitrary and reqr-rested to allow the writ petitions by setting aside 1l e impugned orders. B STi, J W. t'. No. 9480 of 2021 & 3771 of 2022 8 Learned Counsel for the petitioncrs has relied on the following Judgments; 1. Mrs. Lalitha Christian Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmentl 2. Deepathi Avenues Pvt. Ltd. , Hyderabad Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh2 3. Government of A. P. Vs. V. Lingamma3 (iovernrncnt 9 Learned Assistant Plcader for Revenue based on the counter submits thal in the Town Survey Land Register, the house bearing No. 3-2-374 admeasuring l2B7 sc1. yards situated at Chappal B'azar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad was recorded against T. S. No. 2, Block 'B'Ward No. 192 of Lingampally Village of Himal'':rt Nagar Tahsil recorded in Coi. No. 9 as 'Gularn H Kl-ran S/o Gulam Ahmed Khan Afzal Unnisa Begum', Col. No. 10 as Lingampally Village and the total extent shown ir-r Col. No. 17 as 2161. 50 sq. meters and Col. No. 2O was recorded as 'Nizamunnisa \ \ ' 20 1 7 SCC OnLine Hyd 38 2 20 to scc online Ap 956 3 2006(2]|ALT 348 AP (D. B) SK, J W. P. No. 9480 of 12r) I & 3777 of 2022 Begum W/o. Ahmed Ali Saheb and Col. No. 2 - and. 22 r,r,as recorded as 'R' ald Building respectively.
Ei; sing on the representations from the People's representatl\ e s, the ,Joint Collector has called for e nquirl, report lronr -he Revenue Divisiona-l Officer, Hyderabad Divi ;ion vide Lr. No. B2/25443/2017 dated 19. 01. 2018. I re Reve nue Divisional Olficer after conducting enquiry has submitied a detarled report vide No. J/3161 datexl t7 . o7. 2020 l2016 stating that the individuals who are claiming i s Legal heirs are not having aly valid proof that they are tt, actual lega1 heirs of the original land owners and the sa r deeds have been executed by the third parties who lre no \ ray concerneci with the subject land and the rl ::ail s ol' the origina,l owners of the subject property are not in olvn. 10. Learned Assistant Government Ple i der further submits that after issuing notice and opporl _rnity to the concerned persons and a-fter examining a-11 ttL documents produced by them including the petitioners, ttL respondent No.
2 lound discrepancies with regard to the r: ationship of the petitioners with the original owners as p€l the records SK, J W. P. No. 9480 ol 2O2l & 3771 of 2022 and also variations in thc factual data in the documents filed by them has passed the impugneci order declaring that the subject Iand is in the naturc of Bona Vacantia and invoked Section 9 of the \cL, 1974 duh. authorizing the respondent No. 3 to take the sub. ject land into custodl, of the Government under thc provisions of the Act, 1974 and to prepare inventory as required undcr Section 10(1) of the Act, 1974. In compliance of the same, the respondent No. 3 has taken possession of the subjcct land duly conducting parrchanama on 07. O4. 2O'21 and submittcd a report to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Teialgana State, Hyderabad r,icle Lr . No . 82 25443 I 20 17 I dated 31. O5. 2O21 along u,ith Form-I.
She submits that mere payment of property taxes, electricity bills, water charges does not confer any right, title over the subject land and the petitioners nrithout any valid docurnent are trying to grab the vaiuable property. 1 1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that after taking over the property into Government custody, notice under Section 1 1 (1) of the Act, SK, J W. P. No. 9480 of 2(. ll & ll77l ol2022 197{ dated 29. 06. 2021 rvas published in t:: Hyderabad District Gazcttee (Extraordinary)General No :cation No. 1 dirtecl 08. O7. 2021 calling any claims/obj. :tions. Alter ,rt reccipt of tht: claims/objections, the respon<l No. 2 r,ide ,he rnatler lmpugned ietter dated 02. 12. 2021 referred to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Secti rn L 1(3)(a) of thc Act, 1974 tor adjudication and clecision r s to whether ttre persons lnaking the claim are entitied t r the subjcct propcrty or not and the same is penri ng in Case No. O. P. No.
7 of 2022 on the file of the Acl litional Chief Juclge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petiti tner-s rvithout availing the remedy provided under Section I r>f thc Act, 1974 hled thcse v"'rit petitions and the sarne : re liable to bc di s n'r is sed 12 Learned Assistart Government Pt, itder furthcr submits that in view of the interim orders r 3ssed bv this Court, the petitioners have started constru( Lion activities over the subject land and changing the nattr t: of the land. She submits that the respondent No. 2 aftel- lbllowing due procedure as contemplated under the provis. ,,ns of the Act, SK.. J W. P. \o 9480 of '2021 &,3771 ot20)2 1974 has passed the impugned orders vide proceedings No. 8212544312077 dated 01. O4. 20'21 in W. P. No. 9480 of 202t and the letter No. B2 125443 12017 dated 02. 12. 2021 in W. P. No.
377l ot 2022 and neithcr the petitioners nor the alleged predecessors have any right, title over the subject property until thc mattcr is adjr-idicatcd bv the City Civil Court, Hyderabad arrd requcsted to clismiss the writ petitions 13. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the subject property was claimed by the petitioners as privatc propertv as they have purchased the same through r. alicl registercd document in Document No. 487 of 2Ol9 datcd O8. 02. 2019 and they have filed application for construction of the building through application dated 11. O3. 2O2O and after paying requisite fees, the GHMC has issued building permit order vide permit No. 2lCl6 /O24O8 /2021 dated 16. O2. 2O2L. Before issuing the said building permission, the respondent No. 2-Local Officer-cum-District Collector has issued notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1974 SIi, J W. P. No. 9480 of:( 2l & 3771of )O22 on 02. O2.
202 1 b1, affixing notice on the subje r t pr-opert_v- In response to ihe said notice, the petitioners h. i ve subrnitted thcir reply bv claiming their rights over the pr()pert_y on 08. 02. 202 1 and 18. 02. 2021 and otht: s have also subrlitted thcir replies on different dates 14. The conten tion ol the petitioners is t rat oncr: thcy havc submirted their claim petition by s trowing the ir posscssion over Lhe subject property and rlso obtzrined permission ltorn the competent authority Icr construction of building, the respondents without I rtlowing clue procedure as envisaged under the Act, 197. and without fiiing any suit lor declaration under Section [3 (1) of tht: Act, 1974 havc issued proceedings No. B) 125443 l2017 datecl 0l 04 2021 rvhich is arbitrarv and i1lee: I i5, The main contention of the writ peti ioners is that once the property claimed by the petitione ls by shorving possession of the property, the respondenl No.
2 has to rnstrtute a suit before the j competent C Court for ",il declaration ol the Government rights to th: property a4d -i t4 SK.. I W P. No. 9480 oI 2021 & 3771 of 2022 for recovery of possession of the subject property. The rclevant portion of Sections 7,8 and 9 of the Act, 1974 is cxtracted as under, 7. Inquiry relating to escheat or bona vacantia by local officer: Whencver the local ofhcer receives information from irn_y sourcc tlrat any property of thc nature of an cscheat or a bona vacantia is situated or lying within his jurisdiction, he shall cause an inquiry to be made in rcsl)ect thercof. 8. Local officer to institute a suit for recovery of possession of escheat or bona vacantia when the person in possession resists: (1) Where, as a result of the inqurry under scction 7. thc local officcr is s:rtished that the property of the naturc of an escheat or a bona r.
acantia is in thc posscssion o[ a person u,ho has lro authoritv to clarm it ar-rd i[ such person resists to surrender suclr possesston on demard, the local olficcr may, after obtaining thc sanction oi the compctcnt authorit), institute a s. ur irr d court for declaration of the Government's right to the property and for recovery of possession o[ such property. (2) Where the court has declared that the property is an escheat or a bona vacantia, the local officer shall obtait] the possession thereof through the court and manage it or dispose it of in such manner as may be prescribcd. 9. tocal officer to take into custody and to arrange for care and maintenance of proPerty which is not in the possession of any person or its possession is surrendered: Where the property of the nature of al escheat or a bona vacantia is not in the possession of any person or where the pcrson in W. P. No. 9480 of 2(', L & .
\771 oi possession slrrrendcrs such possession when dcmarr,l rl, the olficer shall take tl'rc propertv into his custody zrnd ar :rngc care ald maintcnan(rc until thc clarm is settled under s( t:ion I1. 16. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2 impugned ordcr has taken note of the clairrr ubmitt<rd the petitioncrs bv rccording that the peti ioners purchasecl the subject property from the GPA holder legal heirs of (il-rulam Ahmed Khan through r. r gistered deed bearing l)ocument No. 487 of 2OI9 dat<:, I 08. 02. 2019 for the lancl to an cxte nt of 657 . 75 sq. yards , Lnd also applied for buiidir-rg permission from the GHll C authorities and obtained permission vide permit No. 2, C16/O24OSl 2O2l datcd 16. 0'>. 20) 1 and in spite of that, leclared there are multiplc claims regarding the title <>..
,:r the property ancl initiated steps under Section ) ol the 1974 to takt: the subject property into the ,: rstody Government ch,rl-y preparing inventory as r: fuired Section 10(1) of the Act, l9T4 and kerp it Government custody and also arrange for its care ( SK. J W. P. No. 9480 of 202 I & ],771 of 2022 maintcnance tilI the process under the provisions of the Act, 1974 is completed. 17. Admittedly, there is a claim over the propert_r, bv the pctrtioners and also they are in possession of the subject property. Uniess the competent Civit Court cleclare the property as ar escheat or a bona vacantia undcr Section 8(1) ol the Act, 1974, tlne qr-restion of initiation of procecdir-igs under Section 9 ol the Act, 1974 and rake over the property does not arise. After declaration of Civil Court as the property is escheat or bona vacantia, thc Govemmcnt can take over the possession under Section 8(2) of the Act, 1974.
In view of the same, the action o[ the respondents in issuing proceedings under Section 9 of tlic Act, 1974 is contrary to Sections 8(1) and B(2) ol rl-re Act, 1974 and the said proceedings are liable to be set aside The respondent authorities have to institute a suit before the competent Civil Court for declaration of the Government rights over the subject propertlz and for recovery of possession of the subject property under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1974. Without doing the same, the t7 W. P. No. 9480 ol 12{) respondents \\/anl to takc over possession o property and the samc cannot be acceptable. 18. lire petitioners filecl W. p. No. 94ti ) questioning the procecdings No. 82,25443/2017 dated Ol. O42O21. Pencling the said writ retirion. respondent No. 2 has referred the matter to tir: Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Fll,derabzrd 1n Lr. No. B2 ,25443/2017 dated 02. 12.
'20'21 under Secrion 11(3)(a) of rre lor adjudication and decision as to whethc r the making the clairn are entitlcd to the subject -p rperty 19. Section I I of the Ac. t. l9Z4 is extracrt: t as 11. Procedure for declaring property to be esch:at vacantia: (l) As soon irs inay be alicr thc property is taken i:t-, his under secuon 9, the local officer shall publish a IL{ tice ma1-rrrer as rnay be prcscribed, calling upon thr: rersons maJ, havc itny clarm to such property to prefer claims to snr:h property in the prescribccl irrm -three montl'rs lrorn the dare of publication o the (2) If no claim is prefcrred within the sa ( period three months. thc local olficer sha. ll declare he 1B SK.. J W. P. No. 9480 of 2O2l & 3771 of 2022 in respect ol rvhlch the notice is published ur-rder sub-section (1) to be an oscheat or a bor)a vacantia, as the case may bc. and dispose it oi in such marner as may be prcscribed. (3) (rr) lt an-\' p( ison prefcrs a clarm within the satd period ol tl.
rree months. thc krcal ofhccr shall rcfer the claim to the court Ior its dccrsion as to \\ hethcr or not the pcrson making the claim is entitled to thc pr()pcrt\i and thc court shall, after gir,ing a notice to the local officer and to the claimant, decide thc reference, as if it were a suit; (b) \\/hcre thc colrrt dccidcs that the property taken into custody undcr sectior. r 9 or an1- part thereof rightfully belongs to the claimallt, thc loc;rl officer shall deliver thc same to him; and u'herc the court clccicles that it does nor irelong to the claimant'the court shall cleclarc the propert,\ to be zu cscheat or a bona vacantia as the case rnav be. The said reference dated 02. 12. 2021. was issued basing on tlre orders passed under Section 9 of the Act, 1974 rn Proceedings No. B2/25443/2017 dated 01. 04. 2021.
Once the proccedings initiated under Section 9 of the Act are not in consonance \\,ith the Act, 1974, the question of referring the mater under Section 11(3)(a) of the Act, 1974 does not arlse In view o[ the same, the impugned orders passed in W. P. Nos. 94BO of 2O2I and 3771 of 2022 are liable to be set aside. If the respondent authorities wart to declare the property as bona vacantia, they are at liberty to approach SK, J \{. P. N"o. 9480 of 2( 2 I & . 3771 of 2022 the competent Civil Court by instituting ir suit as per Section 8(1) oi the Acr, 1974. 20. The ,Juclgrncrlts rclied ot-r by the learr r ri counsel for thc petitioners in Mrs. Lalitha Christian's t se (supra 1), I Deepathi Avenues Pvt. Ltd,s case (supr 2) and V Lingamrna's C ASC (supra 3) are squarel)' rpply to the instant case and the impugned orders eu. e 1r b1e to lte set aside 21. In view of the above Ilndings, bot I these Writ Petitions are ailowed by setting aside tl-rr proceeclings No. 82125443 l2Ol7 dared O1 . O4.
2021 ancl : lso rhe letter No. B'2/254431'2O17 dated O2. 12. 2O2 t arrd the consequential procccclings are set aside. IIon,ever, this order does not preclude the respondent arr horities from instituting a suit lor declaration of Governrr:r nt rights and also for recovery of possession as per g(1) Sect r n of the Act, 7974 if so advised. No order as to costs / SK. J w. l'. No. 9480 ot'2O21 &,377 I of 2022 22. Miscelianeous Petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall star-rd closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG s TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble S ri Justice K. SARATH (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To 1 ll LRCopies. 2. Th_e Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. , nga na Advocates Assocration Library, H igh Il:,? _"^"j. 1? ry,^T_ela Court rJU O tngs, Hyderabad. 4. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 5.
The Locar officer cum Distnct coflector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 6. The Tahsildar, Himayathnaqar, Hvderabad / One CC to SRt N. MUKUND_REDbY, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt Q R K. G BHAT|A, Advocaie iOCUbl 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, Hign Colrt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 10 Two CD Copies PS K ) PS - { I t, tl HIGH COURT I l I DATED:27101t2026 i i l I t I COMMON ORDER WP. Nos. 9480 of 2021 AND 3771 OF 2O:tz - -=-:=- _ irlt:ri4L\i. i Y i.. ( 1:. 1 ;3i'8irl26 't * .. cit-416y ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS oE-l ,A a3
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.