IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD
(Rule 4(e) of The High Court for the State of Telangana
Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015

W.P. (PIL) No. Of 2020

Between:
 Kukatpally Area Development Society,
(Regd.No.1055/2011), MIG 60/2, III Phase,
KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072.
Rep by its President, Pannala Harish Chandra Reddy.
S/o.lateP.Subhash Reddy, aged 46 yrs., Occ:Business,
R/o.Flat No.904, Block-22, MalasianTownship,KPHB,
Aadhar No.396898589431, PAN No. AUHPP3544K
Account No.193010100009454, Axis Bank, Kukatpally Branch
e-mail: kukatpallydevelopmentsociety@gmail.com,

..Petitioner
AND
 
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana-022

2. The Chief Commisioner of Land Administration,

Telangana State, Office at Nampally Station Road,
Opp: Annapurna Hotel, Karimabad Cooperative Society,
Abids, Hyderabad, Telangna State

3. The District Collector,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-047

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Malkajgiri Division, At: Keesara, Telangana.

5. The Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-072.

6. The Mandal Revenue Inspector,

Kukatpally Mandal Office,

7. The Mandal Surveyor, Kukatpally Mandal office,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-072.

8. M/s. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceticals l.td.,

Rep., by its General Manager, Balanagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana State -500037.

9. Mrs. Kaniz Fathima, D/o. Asmathunisha Begam

W/o. Mohammed Iqbal Mirza, Aged Major, Occ: House wife,
R/o.955, South Spring Field Avenue, 604, Park Place,
New Jersey, 07081, USA.
10. E.B. Nagarajn, Occ: Tahsildar, preseintly
Working as Tahsildar Keesar Mandal,
Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

11. Ashwin Kumar, Mandal Revenue Inspector

presently working as Depurty Tahsildar in
Kukatpally Mandal Office.

12. The Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kukatpally Mandal,

Malkajgiri Revenue Division, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.
Telanagana State.

..Respondent No. 1 to 12

AFFIDAVIT

I. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE

PETITIONER IS MADE:
SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF:

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the official respondents herein

in not taking any action against the respondent No.10 and 11 and other persons

acting on their behalf in grabbing the land illegally to an extent

II. Particulars of the Petitioner:

It is submitted that the petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana

State societies Registration Act 2001 with registration number 1055/2011 date

10/11/2011. The petitioner society has been formed to protect and develop the

lakes, ponds, nalas, and government lands including municipal parks, play

grounds, roads and to prevent illegal constructions in its area. The petitioner is

actively involved in protecting the interests of the citizens. The petitioner has been

able to protect a huge extent of open spaces in the Kukatpally when the

government made efforts to sell the same to a infrastructure development

corporate entity. The petitioner earlier also filed a PIL No. 192/2013 challenging

the authorities in insisting to install set top boxes and the same was disposed by
this Hon’ble court vide common order dated 20-08-2013. The petitioner comprises

of public spirited citizens who are interested in the general well being of the

people and the petitioner herein has no personal interest in the subject matter of

this petition.

III. Declaration and Understanding of the petitioner:

I, Pannala Harish Chandra Reddy, S/o. Late P. Subhash Reddy, Aged 46 years,

Occ: President of  Kukatpally Area Development Society, R/o. Flat No.904,

Block-22, MalasianTownship, K.P.H.B, Hyderabad, Telangana State., do hereby

solemnly affirm and sincerely oath an state as follows:

1. That the present petition is being filed by way of Public Interest Litigation and

the petitioner doesn’t have any personal interest of protecting the government land

from the encroachers and I am authorized by the petitioner to move any authority

for espousing this cause including this Hon’ble court.

IV. FACTS OF THE CASE :

1. I submit that the present petition is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation

(PIL) against the action of the official respondents in not taking action against the

respondent No.10 and other persons acting on their behalf for

2. I submit that, The Tahasildar/Girdawar of Kukatpally Tahsil in the report as

cited in Ref 2,stated/reported that the lands in question as patta lands and one

Asmathunnisa Begum name is recorded as pattadarin the pahani for the year 1954-

55 ( KHASRA PAHANI).And also from 1995-96 onwards to till date. And further

reported that she filed civil Suite O.S 49/1989 against IDPL and obtained a Decree

in her favour on 06-09-1966,Further submitted that the orders in OS 49/1989 was

challenged/appealed before High Court vide no AS 475/2000 ad same was

dismissed on 06-04-2000 by confirming the decree in above suite. He further

reported that the property in question was delivered the property as per orders in

EP 53/2000 dated 20-09-2000 under panchanama on 23-09-2000.

3. I further submitted that the Further reported that Lrs of Asmathunissa filed Writ

petitions for Demarcation of Schedule property and same was allowed, as per the

orders of Hon’ble High court Ist level Survey was conducted and sent report to the

RDD for Super Check, in this regard I would like to submit the following few

points to your Kind Notice and with a prayer to take strict and stringent action to

safeguard the interest of government.

4. I further submit that at the outset I submit that the property in question is a Jagir

within the definition of Section 2(f) of A.P. (T.A)(Abolition of Jagir) Regulations

1358F.It is opt to extract the definition of Jagir.

“Jagir’’ includes a Paigah, samathan, part of Jagir village,Muktha

village,Agrahar, Umli and Mukasa whether granted by a Ruler or Jagirdar

and has respect the period of commenced on the date appointed for a

Jagirdar and has respect the period of commenced on the date appointed for

a Jagir U/s 5, means the Estate therefore constituting a Jagir.

5. During the Nizam time, if a complete village was given to Inamdar it was

called “JAGIR’’, which could have come with condition to render a service or

without any service. If a Jagirdar was under obligation to pay land revenue to

Nizam or to the Government, the said Jagirdar was called “PAN MAKTHA”.In

case no revenue is payable it was called “MAFI INAM’’.I further submit that

where a person purchased Inam land for a consideration it was called

“JARKARID/INAM’’.
6. I submit that Asmathunnisa Begum name is not recorded as pattadar in the

pahani for the year 1954-55 ( KHASRA PAHANI ) as reported by the

Tahsildar/Girdawar.But the fact is that her name is recorded as Hissedar in pahani

for the year 1954-55.And only from 1995-96 onwards to till date her name is

recorded as pattadar without any orders from Competent authority to an extent of

land Ac 12:13 Guntas.

7. I submit that Government of Telangana (then AP) is not a party to any of Civil

Proceedings O.S 49/1989 which is against IDPL,Further I also submit that in

challenged/appeal in OS 49/1989 before High Court vide no As 475/2000 also

Government of Telangana is not a party which was dismissed on 06-04-2000 by

confirming the Decree in above suite. I further submit that Government of

Telangana is not a party in EP proceedings in which the property in question was

delivered, the property in question was delivered, the property as per orders in EP

53/2000 dated 20-09-2000 under panchanama on 23-09-2000.

8. It is to submit that Asmathunnisa begum was a Hissedar to the property in

question not the pattadar as reported by the Tahsildar/Girdawar,Kukatpally in His

report vide No D/52/2018, the Hissedar within the definition of Section 2(e) of

A.P. (T.A) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations 1358F.It is opt to extract the

definition of Hissedar.

“Hissedar’’ means a person who is entitled to a share in the income of a Jagir

according to the existing law.

9. The Regulation came into force on 15-08-1949 AD. Section 4 clearly

contemplates that after the commencement of regulation no person shall be

appointed to the or be recognized as Jagirdar where as succession to deceased

Jagir or otherwise. Section 5 deals with after the appointed day the property would

trance to the Government and the Jagirdar shall make over the management of the

Jagir to the Jagir Administrator.Under the regulation and the rules have been

framed and also A.P.(T.A) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulations 1359 F.

The Jagirdars/Hissedar is entitled for commutation amount under section 5

of Commutation Regulations 1359F.

10. The petitioner is claiming the share in the said property as per the ---It is

relevant to submit that after the Jagir Abolition Regulations 1358 F came into

force, all Jagirs including the pan maqtha were abolished and the said property

stood vests with the Government. Thus, a property which was vested with the

Government cannot be subject matter of schedule property in the in any suit nor

Nobody can have claim or right over the said property. It is absolutely a

Government property and to that effect the entire revenue record right from

Khasra Pahani clearly shows that it is pan maqtha (Government land).The Jagir

abolition and Section 2(f) of act was upheld by Supreme Court in Sarwalal’s Case

(AIR 1960 SC 862) with the promulgation of the Regulation the rights in a Jagir or

Paigah stood extinguished. Supreme Court of India in Burugupalli Shiva Rama

Krishna Vs M/s Cyrus Investments Ltd held that This Jagirs Regulation included

in the Ninth Schedule of the constitution of India.

As pan maqtha is also a kind of Jagir,on abolition of jagirs under the above Act,all

the maqtha lands were vested in the State.Thus,recording of the above land as

patta in Pahani was incorrect.As Asmathunnisa begum is Hissedar, she is entitled

only for commutation amount under section 2(a) of communication

Regulations 1359.I therefore request you to get report from The

commissioner Survey Settlements and Land Records,whether the

Commutation was paid or not in respect of the lands in SyNo 376 of

Kukatpally.

Further as per Section 12A 1&2 of said act.

12A 1).Notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order, proceeding of court or

any other authority, save the authority prescribed under the Hyderabad

(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F.,and rules thereof, all the jagirs lands

including Paigah,Samsthans part of Jagir, Muktha, Village, Agrahar , Umli

and Mukasa, etc., within the meaning of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs)

Regulation,1358F ., which stood vested in the state under the said Act,the title

and ownesrship of such Jagir lands never transferred or never deemed to

have been transferred to any person.

12A 2). The Jagir lands defined under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs )

Regulation, 13358F., shall be recorded and maintained as Government lands

in the revenue records.

Therefore the lands in Survey No 376 of Kukatpally Village belongs to

Government of Telangana which are vested with state long way back and same

cannot be a Schedule property to any Suite and no private Claims in respect the

lands shall not be entertained as per the Sub Section 1 of 12 A of AN ACT

FURTHER TO AMEND THE TELENGANA RIGHTS IN LAND AND

PATTADAR PASS BOOK ACT,1971.An ACT 1 OF 2018.Asmathunnisa

begum was only a Hissedar who is entitled for commutation of sum under

Section 5 of A.P.(T.A) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation of 1359F.Hence I

request your kind self to take Strict and stringent action on the

false/misleading Report of Tahsildar/Girdavar who failed in safeguard the

interest of Government – bringing Facts to your kind Notice and direct the

Tahsildar/Recording Authority to correct the Revenue Records as per Sub

Section 2 of 12A of AN ACT FURTHER TO AMEND THE TELANGANA

RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT,1971.An ACT 1

OF 2018.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ,

Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring Under the above facts and circumstances it is therefore prayed that this

Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction

essentially in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent

in not taking action of the respondent No. as illegal unconstitutional and direct
the respondents to take action aganist the respondent for and pass such other

order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

It is also just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased pending

disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.