HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10356 OF 2008 DATED 19th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Mir Hamed Hussain Khan ….Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, rep. by its Special Municipal Commissioner and ors …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10356 OF 2008.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property to an extent of 15600 square yards comprised in Sy.Nos.106 and 107 in plot No.2 of Earram Manzil, Hyderabad. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Nawab Fakrul Mulk. After the death of the said Nawab Fakrul Mulk, the property became ‘matrooka property’ and the entire property of an extent of 123401 square yards was made into five plots and each plot was allotted to each branch of legal heirs as per the shares determined in the preliminary decree passed in C.S.No.9 of 1951, dated 12.02.1969. In the said division, Plot No.2 admeasuring 15600 square yards was allotted to the petitioner. This Court appointed a Commissioner who demarcated and delivered possession of Plot No.2 to the legal heirs of late Fakar Jung Bahadur, who are one of branch of legal heirs of said Nawab Fakrul Mulk on 20.12.1969 in the presence of the Receiver appointed by this Court. The said Receiver submitted his final report on 23.06.1970 and the same was accepted by this Court. While that being so, the petitioner came to know that respondents 1 and 2 sanctioned layout in favour of the third respondent without giving prior notice to him, who is the owner of the property. The petitioner submitted applications on 21.04.2006 and 19.07.2007 to the second respondent requesting to cancel the layout. One Devarushi Mahadev filed suit in O.S.No.1914 of 1975 against third respondent herein on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration of the property and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 31.12.1983. Further one Smt. V,.Mashnamma filed suit in O.S.No.30 of 1984 against Devarushi Emaji and Devarushi Mahadev on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration and recovery of possession alleging that she purchased the property from said S.V.Narasaiah and the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 9.6.1998 and it was confirmed in CCC.A.No.97 of 1989 by this Court in judgment dated 22.4.2004. The petitioner again submitted representation on 01.08.2007 to the second respondent seeking cancellation of layout sanctioned in favour of the third respondent and when no action was taken, the present Writ Petition was filed.
Though no counter affidavit is filed in the Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to keep the Writ Petition pending. From the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition, it is not known as to when the layout was sanctioned to the third respondent. However, if third parties are in occupation of the property in question, proper remedy of the petitioner is to seek recovery of the possession of the property and not for cancellation of the layout. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law in respect of the property claimed by him.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 19th November, 2014. Msnrx