Hyderabad: In a setback to M/s Trinity Infraventures Limited, formerly M/s. Goldstone Exports Ltd belonging to “Gold Stone” Prasad, the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday dismissed their pleas challenging the revision orders passed by the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district against the claim of the petitioners over the controversial Miyapur and Hasmathpet lands belonging to the Paigahs.
The court said that the Balanagar mandal tahsildar cannot pass any order effecting the mutation, until a final decree in accordance with law was passed in the suit CS 14 of 1958.
A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice N. Balayogi was dismissing three separate petitions filed by M/s Trinity Infraventures Limited represented by its authorised signatory P.S. Partha Sarathi challenging three different orders passed by the joint collector on Feb 9, 2018, allowing three different revision petitions under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, against the orders of the tahsildar concerned.
The tahsildar of Balanagar mandal of the district on August 19, 2011, passed the orders effecting the mutation of 113 acres in Survey No. 1 to 57 of the Hasmathpet village in favour of Ms Indrani Prasad, Mr S. Murali Krishna, Dr P.S. Prasad, M/s Cyrus Investments Ltd, M/s Gold Stone Exports Ltd, M/s Gold Stone Infratech Ltd, Mr L.P. Sashi Kumar and Mr Rama Murthy.
The bench noted that it was seen from the orders of the tahsildar that the claim of the petitioners for a mutation of the revenue records in their favour was based upon a final decree purportedly passed by the Hyderabad High Court in Application Nos. 711 and 712 of 2009, in Application No. 86 of 2010 and No. 86 of 2011 in CS No. 14 of 1958, purportedly declaring the petitioners as absolute owners of these lands. Ms Hameedunnisa Begum, Nawab Mohd Moizuddin Khan, Noushad Ali and Mansoor Sadruddin had moved three separate petitions
before the joint collector against the order of the tahsildar and the joint collector who allowed all the three revision petitions and remanded the matter back to the tahsildar for a de nova inquiry.
While looking into the origin of the CS 14-1958 case which was pending in the High Court for the last 60 years, the bench pointed out, “The suit in CS No. 14 of 1958 has had a chequered history in this court. The suit was originally instituted in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but it was withdrawn by this court and transferred to itself probably under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. There are innumerable applications still pending on the file of this court in this suit.”
The bench observed, “In the past 60 years of its pendency in this court, this litigation has created a history of sorts, mostly for bad reasons.”
Referring to the claim of the petitioners that the final decree was passed in the Suit 14/1958 , the bench noted that the whole issue in these cases revolve around the finality to a final decree, but the very existence of the final decree is also in dispute. In any case, the respondents contend that the preliminary decree should first be looked into before deciding whether there was a final decree or not. But the parties to these cases have not produced copies of the plaint or the preliminary decree passed in CS No. 14 of 1958.”
While upholding the order of the joint collector, the bench noted that the joint collector rightly pointed that no final decree was passed in the suit. The bench leaf it open for the writ petitioners to join the applications and appeals forming part of a huge batch of cases in CS No.14 of 1958 pending before a special bench of the High Court for appropriate relief.
HC allows contempt appeal
The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday observed, “It is quite unfortunate that public interest was sacrificed in this case, with a series of orders being passed in CS No. 7 of 1958 in favour of M. Lingamaiah from 2002, without reference to the original records in the case which are related to the valuable 209 acres in Raidurg in the city.”
A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice N. Balayogi was allowing a contempt appeal by Mr S. Tirupathi Rao, tahsildar of Serilingampally mandal of Ranga Reddy district challenging an order passed by a single judge punishing him and directing him to effect mutation of the name of Mr Lingamaiah in the revenue records for his claim over the land.” The bench noted that CS No. 7 of 1958 was filed by Ms Saheb Jahi Sultan Jahan Begum, in respect of the Matruka Properties including the land admeasuring Ac. 209.00 guntas in Survey Nos. 1 to 49, situated in Raidurg village at S. No. 234 in Schedule-A of the plaint.
The bench pointed out that Item 234 in Schedule-A to the plaint in which Mr Lingamaiah claims the rights, did not contain the extent of land, the survey number and the boundaries. and or any other measure of identification of the property.
The bench said, “It must be pointed out that there are a lot of applications, writ petitions, original side appeals, miscellaneous petitions, etc., arising out of CS No. 7 of 1958, which are still pending in a huge batch of cases. It is only due to the fact that the entire batch has been specially assigned to this bench, that we have been able to take judicial notice of all the above facts including the averments in the plaint, the judgement in the suit and the list of properties that formed the subject matter of the suit.”
The bench said, “We are conscious of the fact that the learned Judge, against whose orders the present appeals have been filed, did not have the benefit of the records in CS No. 7 of 1958. But we have had the benefit of the records in that suit, since all matters relating to the said suit have been assigned specially to this bench by the orders of the Chief Justice.”
The bench observed, “It is this series of orders, which led to a chain, with one leading to the other and the other leading to a third and so on and so forth which has eventually left the government in total wilderness. The government against whom the suit was dismissed, at the instance of the plaintiff, has now become a major judgement debtor.”
The bench further observed, “The lis between the owners and the Government was left undecided in the suit and the mere division of the property now in dispute (Item 234) was made subject to the orders of the Board of Revenue. If that is so, no court can compel the government to give up their rights and sacrifice the huge extent of about 100 acres in a prime locality in favour of third parties to the detriment of public interest.” The bench set aside the order of the single judge.
H02
