1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
Present: P.Vijender, Prl.District Judge.
Friday, the 23rd day of September, 2016.
C.M.A.No.5 of 2015
Between:
The Government of Telangana Rep.by Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, Aranya Bhavan, Opp: Reserve Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad. … Appellant AND
1. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan, S/o.late Mir Mehdi Ali Khan, Shia Muslim, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-1-123/B, Masab Tank, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. Nawab Syed Abdul Waheab, S/o.late Nawab Syed Abdullah, Muslim, aged about 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-2-977, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
3. Nawab Syed Abdul Hameed, S/o.late Nawab Syed Abdullah, Muslim, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-2-977, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
4. Forest Settlement Officer, Uppal,
Ranga Reddy District. ..Respondents
Appeal against the Orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, dt.15- 10-2014, in
Proceedings No.B/1428/1971
Between:
1. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan,
2. Nawab Syed Abdul Waheb
3. Nawab Syed Abdul Hameed … Claimants AND
The Government of Telangana, Rep,by its Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad. … Respondents
This appeal is coming before me for a final hearing on 29-08-2016 in the presence of Sri Mohan Rao, Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri K. Ashok Reddy, Counsel for the respondents and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, U/s.13(2) of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 r/w 1.
Sec.151 C.P.C, is preferred by the Government of Telangana being aggrieved by 2 the Proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, in File
No.B/1428/1971, dt.15-10-2014.
The brief facts which arose for filing of the present appeal are as under:- 2.
The Board of Revenue, Hyderabad by its order in proceedings
No.10815/17A dt.23-7-1953 allotted an extent of Ac.570-00 gts of land out of
Ac.770-27 gts in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village to the Forest
Department for establishing of Soil Conservation Search Centre. This extent includes Ac.102-00 gts in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Village as part of
Gurramguda Forest Block and got it notified U/s.4 of A.P.Forest Act and the
Government approved it by issuing G.O.Ms.No.772 Food and Agriculture (Forest-
III) dt.18-6-1971, for reservation of Gurramguda Forest Block and appointed
Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, to consider the objections, if any, against the said declaration and to enquire and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed or alleged to exist in favour of any person over the land. The notification of the Government was published in the District Gazette
No.15, dt.26-07-1971 and in the official A.P.Gazette No.23 dt.12-8-1971.
The Forest Settlement Officer issued a proclamation U/s.6 of A.P.Forest
Act, 1967 on 15-12-1971 and the same was published in the District Gazette
No.1 dt.5-1-1972. The proclamation was also displayed on the Notice Board in the office of Tahsildar, Ibgrahimpatnam inviting the claims and objections against the notification published under Sec.4(b)(1) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 over the lands proposed and included in the Gurramguda Forest Block within a period of one year from the date of publication.
Later, proposals U/s.15 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 of Gurramguda Forest
Block were prepared by the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, and submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 20-12-2004 for verification and for onward transmission to the Conservator of Forest Hyderabad Circle. The 3
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, transmitted the said proposals to the
Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad, after due verification on 2-3-2008 for further action in the matter and the same is pending scrutiny of the Conservator of
Forest, Hyderabad.
During the process of verification in the office of District Collector, respondents 1 to 3 claiming to be successors and legal heirs of Salar Jung-III filed a claim petition on 30-11-2005 U/s.6(1)(d) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 before the
Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad at Uppal, explaining the reasons for the delay in submitting the claim petition against the notification U/s.4 of A.P.Forest
Act, 1967 in respect of Gurramguda Forest Block, claiming that it is private property of Salar Jung-III as per the sale deed dt.5-3-1243 Hijri and Jagir
Administrator, Hyderabad and Lr.No.808/CH, dt.24-4-1954 releasing the
Sahjebnagar Kalan Village lands from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate.
The Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad admitted the said claim and addressed a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, that Sec.15 notification proposals may be kept pending till the enquiry of claim petition was completed and finalized by the Forest Settlement Officer and requested to submit remarks for the proposal of exclusion of patta lands in Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of Ac.102- 00 gts pertaining to Salar Jung-III situate at Sahebnagar Kalan Village from
Gurramguda Forest Block. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the
Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad Circle.
The Divisional Forest Officer did not furnish any report in response to the letter by the Forest Officer, however the Conservator of Forest sent a report on 9- 7-2008 stating that the Forest Settlement Officer is not competent authority to admit the claim filed by the respondents 1 to 3 after lapse of several years of publication of proclamation U/s.6 of A.P.Forest Act in the year 1972. In reply to it, the Forest Settlement Officer submitted a detailed clarification by letter dt.26- 4 11-2008 to the objection raised by the Conservator of Forest and informed about the authority of Forest Settlement Officer for admission of the claim and further stated that as per the provisions of Sec.16 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967, the Forest
Settlement Officer was convinced of the delay caused in filing the claim on submission of the documentary evidence by the respondents 1 to 3 and allowed the petition. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer addressed a letter to the
Divisional Forest Officer for joint inspection of the Forest Block observing that it needs consideration for exclusion of the lands claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 from the notification and proclamation. Subsequently, the Forest Settlement
Officer, after due enquiry rejected the claim of respondents 1 to 3 by an order dt.3-9-2010 in File No.B/1428/1971 on the ground that the land in Sy.Nos.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village is Government land and not self acquired land as claimed by the respondents. Aggrieved by it, respondents 1 to 3 preferred a
Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA.No.142/2010 on the file of VII Addl.District Court,
R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and the same was allowed on 14-3-2012 and remanded the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer for a fresh disposal. After the remand, the Forest Settlement Officer passed the impugned orders on 15-10-2014 holding that the land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village is Arazi Maktha (self purchased) and the Divisional Forest Officer failed to establish that it is a
Government land and ordered for exclusion of same from notification of
Gurramguda Forest Block and further directed to revise the forest block with the lands in Turkayamjal and Gurramguda Villages alone.
Aggrieved by the said findings, the Government preferred the present 3.
Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:-
The order under appeal is bad in law, facts on the record, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Forest Settlement Officer grossly erred in entertaining the claim after lapse of 35 years from the date on which 5 notifications U/s.5 and proclamation U/s.6 of the A.P.Forest Act were issued. The
Forest Settlement Officer ought to have rejected the claim on the ground of delay and latches itself without going into the merits of the case. The Forest
Settlement Officer ought to have observed that the claimants have extinguished their rights by not claiming the land within the period fixed under Sec.6 of the Act, as their claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Forest Settlement Officer ought to have seen that even in the original claim filed by the respondents 1 to 3 on 30-11-2005, neither there was an explanation for the delay or prayer to condone it. The findings of the Forest Settlement Officer that the delay was already considered by the then Forest Settlement Officer is quite contrary to law and on the record and it shows the absolute collusiveness and non-application of mind in rendering the award. The Forest Settlement Officer has not assigned any reason as to the right and title accrued to the respondents 1 to 3 while allowing their claim. The Forest Settlement Officer has given a go-bye to the revenue records with regard to the subject lands and failed to consider the provisions of Abolition of Jagirs Regulation Act and Abolition of Inams Act and orders passed from time to time, subsequent assignments made, etc.
The Forest Settlement Officer ought to have seen that a Writ Petition
No.19942/2005 filed by Bhaktwar Begum and 11 others is pending before the
Hon’ble High Court for exclusion of the same land from Sy.No.201 of
Sahebnagar Kalan Village and in the said petition, respondents 1 to 3 have got impleaded themselves as parties and filed counter affidavits. Therefore, it was not open for the Forest Settlement Officer to adjudicate the ward, as it is subjudice before the Hon’ble Higih Court. The Forest Settlement Officer ought to have seen that the evidence placed on record by the respondents 1 to 3 is totally fabricated, tampered and altered and cannot be relied upon. The Forest
Settlement Officer ought to have seen that without obtaining a prior approval from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the land 6 cannot be deleted from the Forest Area. The lower Authority ought to have seen that all the properties of Salar Jung-III are the subject matter of partition in
C.S.No.13/1958 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad, in
which a preliminary decree was passed in the year 1959 and these lands are not subject matter of the said suit. Therefore, the claim of respondents 1 to 3 ought to have been rejected. The Lower Authority ought to have seen that respondents 1 to 3 have not substantiated their title over the subject land either by succession or inheritance prior to the issuance of Sec.4 Notification. The Lower Authority ought to have seen that the issue whether the subject land is a Government land, patta land or inam land was already decided by the Hon’ble High Court after examining the revenue records and other relevant papers for several years in
CCCA.No.84/1982 and the Joint Collector, R.R.District in Case No.
B3/8854/1985, dt.3-11-1997 and held that it is Government land and the said findings are binding on the Lower Authority.
Admitting of the claim by the Lower Authority would amount to exceeding the jurisdiction as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
M/s.D.P.Roy & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Lower Authority ought to have seen that the land was handed over to the Forest Department way back in the year 1953 and it is in its possession. An application after lapse of 53 years claiming ownership cannot be considered and entertained in law, since the original allotment made by the Revenue Department in favour of the Forest
Department was not challenged till today and it has attained finality and remained un-challenged. The Lower Authority ought to have seen that the claim of Salar
Jung Estate Committee was rejected by the Nizam Athiyat Court in its order dt.26-6-1968 in File No.2/1956 holding that “Aarazi Maktha” is the subject matter of enquiry under Inam Abolition Act, which comes under the definition given in
Sec.2(c)(1) of Inam Abolition Act and all the “Aarazi Kamthas’ vested in the
Government only after abolition of inams. The lower Authority ought to have 7 seen that the respondents cannot rely on the entries in the pahanies for the years 1964-65 to 1982-83 to prove their title, as they were made after notification U/s.4 of the Forest Act.
The Lower Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the parties in respect of the subject lands. The Lower Authority ought to have seen that the suits in O.S.Nos.156/1980 and 1450/1983 are in respect of declaration of entitlement of shares in the computation amount lying with the Jagir Administrator among the descendents of Najiba Begum and heirs of Nawab Turab Ali Khan,
Salar Jung-I and it is not in respect of the subject land and the said Judgment do not give any right to the respondents 1 to 3 to claim the subject lands. The interpretation of Judgments in O.P.No.316/1998 and LGA.No.31/1987 by the
Lower Authority to suit the claim of respondents 1 to 3 is erroneous. The findings of the Lower Authority that the Judgment in CCCA.No.84/1982 and the order of the Joint Collector, R.R.District in Case No.8854/1985 are not binding on the respondents 1 to 3 are erroneous. The Lower Authority wrongly interpreted the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the proposals U/s.15 of A.P.Forest Act and failed to consider the possession of the Forest Department from 1953. The
Lower Authority had taken a wrong meaning to the definition in respect of word “Aarazi Maktha” as self purchased. In fact, it does not mean as “self-purchased” land. The Lower Authority did not give finding regarding pending petitions before the Hon’ble High Court in respect of the subject lands. Hence, the orders of the
Lower Authority under appeal are liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
On hearing both sides and considering the material on the record and 4.
findings of the Lower Authority, the following points have emerged for consideration:-
Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Salar Jung-III ? (1) 8
Whether the claim made by the petitioners is lapsed by efflux (2) of time ?
Whether the land admeasuring Ac.102-00 gts forming part of (3) Sy.No.201 is private patta land of Salar Jung-III ?
Whether the claimants are entitled for deletion of subject land (4) of Ac.102-00 gts forming part of Sy.No.201/1 ?
Whether the findings of the Lower Authority impugned in this (5) appeal needs any interference ?
POINT No.1: The undisputed fact is pursuant to the orders of Vth Member 5.
& Commissioner of Survey & Settlement, Board of Revenue dt.31-12-1976, on the appeal filed by the claimants against the orders of Nazim Atiyat dt.26-06- 1978 in File No.2/56 of 1956, the respondents 1 to 3 filed two suits in
O.S.Nos.156/1980 and 1451/1983 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, claiming rights of succession for commutation of amounts and also seeking declaration of right to succession of late Salar Jung-III. After full-fledged trial, the suits were decreed on 12-10-2004, declaring that the claimants are entitled to be declared as successors of late Salar Jung-III as per the Shia & Personal Law and entitled to claim the commutation amount lying with defendant No.44 in the said suit. Aggrieved by the said findings in these two suits, appeals were preferred before the III Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, in AS.Nos.222/2005 and 335/2005, which were dismissed on 01-08-2007, conforming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in the said suits. Since no second appeal was preferred, the findings therein have become final. It is seen from the pleadings and Judgments of O.S.Nos.156/1980 and 1451/1983 that the Government of A.P, represented by Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Chief Secretary is the defendant No.45 and Jagir Administrator,
Government of Andhra Pradesh is the defendant No.44 and since no second 9 appeal was preferred, the findings Given by the trial Court as confirmed by the
Appellate Court are binding on the Government.
Even before the Lower Authority also, the appellant has not placed any 6.
evidence on the record to show that the claimants are not the legal heirs of Salar
Jung-III and are not entitled for any share in the commutation amount. In the light of findings by a competent Civil Court as to the legal heirship of the claimants, which has attained finality in the appeal, it is not open for the appellant in this Miscellaneous Appeal to urge that the claimants are not the legal heirs of Salar Jung-III. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the claimants.
POINT No.2: One of the appeal grounds is that the Lower Authority 7.
grossly erred in entertaining the claim after 35 years from the date on which notification U/s.4 and proclamation U/s.6 of the Forest Act were issued. U/s.16 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), once the Forest
Settlement Officer is convinced of the reasons for the delay in a claim made by the parties before publication of notification Sec.15 of the Act, he has every right to entertain and proceed to dispose of the claim as provided under the Act. In the present case, notification U/s.15 of the Act has not been issued till 30-11- 2005. The Forest Settlement Officer proceeded with the enquiry as per the provisions of the Act and addressed a letter to the Tahsldar on 12-12-2005 seeking a report on the claim and copies of the said letter were also marked to the Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator of Forest and Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest. After receiving the report dt.16-2-2008 from the
Dy.Collector in response to the said letter dt.12-12-2005, the Forest Settlement
Officer addressed a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer and then proceeded to enquiry into the matter. That apart, the declaration of legal heirship of the claimants was finalized after disposal of the appeals, which were preferred 10 against the Judgments & Decrees in O.S.Nos.156/1980 and 1451/1983. Since notification U/s.15 has not been issued till 30-11-2005, the preferring of a claim by the claimants for exclusion of the subject lands is rightly within limitation as held by the Lower Authority. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellant.
POINTS 3 & 4: It is seen from the record that late Saheb Begum Saheba, 8.
the great grandmother of late Salar Jung-III purchased three Makthas known as
Gandhari Pump, Kambatla Maktha situate in the limits of Almakal Village,
Hayathabad Pargana and Erramma Bowli Maqta situate in the limits of Tulur
Village of Ibrahimpatnam Pargana by a sale deed dated 05-03-1243 Fasli executed by Rafit-Ul-Mulk and the recitals of the said document shows that the sale deed was executed in Persian Language and it pertains to the year 1243
Fasli (1823 AD) i.e about 192 years old. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, all the pages of the certified copy of the sale deed are stamped with the seal of Department of Andhra Pradesh State Archieves,
Hyderabad and signed by the Director, State Archieves dt.13-09-1966 and issued to the Receiver cum Commissioner, Estate of Salar Jung, on his application dt.4-5-1966. A photo copy of the certified copy of the said sale deed is submitted by the respondents and the original certified is placed before the
Lower Authority. It is seen from this document that Rafat-Ul-Mulk was the vendor of the property and it was purchased by Saheb Begum Saheba for a sale consideration of Rs.2,825/- currency and the pun amount being paid by the vendor till the time of sale was Rs.33/- and the vendee was to remit to the
Government each year, as documented in the sale deed duly signed by the staff at the bottom of the last page and approved with the personal stamp of Rafit-Ul-
Mulk.
11
The revenue records pertaining to Saheb Nagar Kalan Village reveals that 9.
the three Maktha Lands were purchased by Saheb Begum Saheba in the year 1243 Faseli. The Rivision Settlement of Sahebnagar took place in the eyar 1356 Fasli i.e 1954 AD and the first survey of said Village took place in the year 1309 Fasli i.e 1900 AD and ever since, it continued to be in the Khasra and
Sethwar of Sahebnagar Kalan Village.
It is seen from the record that the Collector, Hyderabd, secured list of lands 10.
of Sahebnagar Kalan Village from the Estate of Salar Jung, a separate Village of
Hyderabad East Taluq, having separate Sethwar and Wasool Baqi and transmitted to the Tahsildar with details of Survey Numbers and areas of Arazi
Maktha pertaining to Salar Jung Estate and the survey numbers were implemented in the Jamabandi of 1956. As per the Settlement Record, the total survey numbers of Sahebnagar Kalan Village are 244 and the total area is 2262- 36 acres belonging to Salar Jung Estate. In the pahanies of the Sahebnagar
Village till 1986 the Shebnagar Kalan is shown as Arazi Makta Salar Jung in the column of pattedar.
As observed by the Lower Authority in the impugned order that it is not in 11.
dispute that in the year 1889 the Estate of Salar Jung was taken over by the
Government of Nizam and kept under the management of Court of Wards to manage the properties of Salar Jung-III, as he was one month old by the date of death of his father Laiq Ali Khan and after his attaining the age of majority, the properties of Estate Salar Jung were released from the Court of Wards by a
Farman dt.18th Rabialawal 1330 Hijri (1912 AD) issued by the H.E.H Nizam and
Salar Jung-III was put in possession of the estate consisting of 393 Villages, in which Sahebnagar Kalan was listed at Sl.No.367. After the death of Salar Jung-
III on 2-3-1949, an Estate Regulation Bill No.34/1358 FAsli was issued by H.E.H
Nizam constituting the Salar Jung Estate Committee for administration of Salar 12
Jung Estate, vesting all powers and duties under the Court of Wards Act, 1350
Fasli. After the promulgation of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli, the then Hyderabad Government issued a notification on 7-9-1949 transferring the entire estate of Salar Jung to Jagir Administrator, which came into effect on 20-9-1949. As per the letter dt.23-7-1953 issued by the Board of
Revenue, Hyderabad in File No.10815/10817/A, an extent of Ac.570-00 gts of land out of Ac.770-00 gts in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village was allotted to the Forest Department for taking up soil conservation programme, though the land was originally belonging to Salar Jung Estate. Pursuant to that, the Salar Jung Estate Committee filed a claim for release of the land belonging to the estate. Thereupon, it was decided by the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, that the lands detailed in the statement consisting of 12 Villages including
Sahebnagar Kalan Village listed at Sl.No.1 were found to be Arazi Maktha and ordered for release of the same from the integration in favour of Salar Jung
Estate vide Lr.No.808/CH, dt.24-04-1954. The Dy.Jagir Administrator passed an order on 26-09-1955 in File No.19/C issuing some clarifications to the District
Collectors for implementing the said order of Jagir Administrator dt.24-4-1994 and directed them to handover the lands by excluding the public places to Salar
Jung Estate.
A claim was presented on 15-10-1955 by the Secretary of Salar Jung 12.
Estate for confirmation of estate. Thereupon, the office of Nizam Atiyat issued a notification on 15-02-1956 in File No.1550/1, which was published in the official
Gazette on 29-3-1956 for conducting Inam Enquiry for confirmation of estate of
Salar Jung including Arazi Maktha shown in the list as A, B, C and D appended to the Notification in favour of the Estate, in which the three lands of Sahebnagar
Kalan Village are shown at ‘D’ as purchased lands at Sl.No.3. In consequence of the said notification dt.15-2-1956 by the Nazim Atiyat, an Inam enquiry was conducted in File No.2/56 of 1956 in respect of Salar Jung Estate and by an 13 order dt.19-11-1957 and it was held that the Atiyat Court should confine its enquiries to the Inam Enquiries and the enquires as to any right, title or interest in the crown grants, Jagir and self purchased lands, leaving all questions of succession and ancillary matters. In the said enquiry by the Nazim Atiyat, it has been held that out of 90 Villages of list `C’, the claim to the extent of 59 Villages was settled and out of the remaining 31 Villages, 12 Villages were declared as
Arazi Maktha and released in the year 1954 by theJagir Administrator by letter
No.808/CH dt.24-04-1954, as they do not come under the purview of Jagir
Abolition Regulation Act and in the said list, Item No.9 is Sahebnagar Kalan
Village and after excluding the 12 Villages, the remaining 19 Villages were taken over by the Government from the possession of Salar Jung Estate Committee.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, in the said enquiry order dt.26-6-1968, in respect of list ‘D’ properties, it is mentioned that these are
Arazi Maktha and Inam lands and Atiyat Court ceased to have jurisdiction over them and the claimants are free to seek relief under the Abolition of Inams Act, 1967. An appeal against the said orders of Nazim Atiyat dt.26-6-1968 was filed
before the Vth Member, Board of Revenue, who by an order dt.31-12-1976 held
that there were disputes among the legal heirs of Salar Jung and the Nizam
Atiyat has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for succession of
Salar Jung-III. With regard to rights over Arazi Maqtas, the Vth Member, Board of Revenue held that the findings of Nazim Atiyat in the order dt.26-6-1968 to seekrelief under Abolition of Inams Act, 1967 is not in order and as such, the same was cancelled and ordered the appellants to approach the Atiyat
Collector, Hyderabad District to work out the remedies.
One of the submission of the learned Counsel for the 13.
appellant/Government is, U/s.2 of A.P.Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Inam includes Arazi Maktha and in view of it, the claimants ought to have approached under the Abolition of Inams Act,1955, to work out the remedies, but as rightly 14 submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that U/s.2 (C) of A.P.Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Inam means lands given under a gift or a grant made by the
Nizam or any Jagir, holder of Samsthan or other competent granter and continued or confirmed by virtue of a Muntakab or other title deed with or without the conditions of service and coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the Village records andincludes Arazi Makthas, Arazi Agrahars and Seri Inams and vide Sec.3 (ii), lands held as Inam by virtue of possession and entered as Inam in Village records.
The subject land of Ac.102-00 gts in Sy.No.201/1 is found as private 14.
property of late Salar Jung as per the Sale Deed obtained by his grandfather and the proviso to Abolition of Inams Act specifically states that the expression
Inam shall not include the formal Jagir areas which are not recognized by the
Government as Inams. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant/Government that the claimants ought to have approached under the provisions of Abolition of Inams Act holds no water.
Another important aspect is, when once notification U/s.4(c) of the 15.
A.P.Forest Act was issued by the Forest Settlement Officer, the persons who are claiming right or title in respect of any of the properties listed, have to approach only the forum provided under the Act.
It is seen from the impugned orders of the Lower Authority after receiving 16.
of report dt.16-2-2008 from the Dy.Collector/Tahsildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, The
Forest Settlement Officer addressed a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer stating that based on the pahanies and other revenue records, Sy.No.201/1 of
Sahebnagar Kalan Village is Arazi Makta landand the name of Salar Jung is recorded in Column No.11 as pattedar till 1982-83. It is further reported that the notified land was demarcated by the Mandal Revenue Inspector andMandal 15
Surveyor. After scrutiny of the documents placed before it, the Lower Authority came to the conclusion that the subject lands are the private lands of Salar Jung and the claimants are entitled for exclusion of the same from the notification.
One of the submission of the learned counsel for the 17.
appellant/Government is that the letter issued by the Jagir Administrator bearing
No.808/CH/1954 dt.24-4-1954 does not contain the survey numbers and extents, as such, the Lower Authority erred in relying on the said document to confirm the title of late Salar Jung-III. But, it is pertinent to see that under the said letter the Jagir Administrator has ordered for release of 12 Arazi Maktha
Villages from the integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate and in the statement attached to it, only the total area of each village was mentioned without survey number, because the entire Village land was held by Salar Jung-III. As per the
Settlement Records, the total number of survey numbers was 244 with area of
Ac.2262-36 gts, which co-relates to the area mentioned in the letter bearing
No.804/CH dt.20-4-1954 of Jagir Administration.
Another important aspect is, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar 18.
filed OP.NO.316/1988 on the file of District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, R.R.District, claiming that an extent of
Ac.26 guntas in Sy.No.60 of Lingojiguda Village is the Government land. In the said OP, Government contended that U/s.3-A of Salar Jung Estate Regulation, 1358 Fasli, the estate of Salar Jung including his personal properties are vested in the Salar Jung Estate Committee, which was having power to sell, transfer or deal with the estate, including the personal property of the Salar Jung and the document marked therein establishes that Salar Jung Estate Committee sold the subject land of said OP in 1954 and the respondent therein is the owner of it.
The respondent in the said OP also contended that as per Lr.No.808/CH dt.24- 4-1954, an extent of 277-02 acres of land of Lingojiguda Village was listed at 16
Sl.No.3 in the statement attached to it, out of the 12 Arazi Maktha Villages, which were ordered to be released in favour of the Estate of Salar Jung. The
Village Map of Lingojiguda reveals that Lingojiduga is the estate of Nawab Salar
Jung and in Inam Enquiry Order dt.26-6-1968, it was listed at Sl.No.7 as Arazi
Maktha and it does not come under the purview of Jagir Abolition Regulation. It was held in the said OP by the Special Tribunal that the Government is not the owner of the land in Sy.No.60 of Lingojiguda Village and the respondent therein was the owner. The Government having aggrieved by the findings of the
SpcialTribunal in the Judgment dt.1-9-1993 preferred an appeal in
LGA.No.31/1997 before the Special Court under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the same was also dismissed confirming the findings of the Special Tribunal in OP.No.316/1988. It was held by the Appellate Tribunal that the schedule property, which is part of Lingojiguda Village in an extent of
Ac.277-02 gts, which was released in favour of Salar Jung Estate originally forms part of Salar Jung Private land and State is not the owner of the land. The
Government has not preferred any Writ Petition against the findings of the
Appellate Tribunal in LGA.No.31/1988. Hence, it has attained finality. By the said findings, it is clearly established that in the statement annexed to the letter
No.808/CH/1954, dt.24-04-1954, there are 12 Makthas, out of which Lingojiguda
Village at Sl.No.3 and Sahebnagar Kalan Village at Sl.No.1 are part of the properties of Sajar Jung Estate.
The revenue records till 1985-86 reflects the name of Salar Jung as Arazi 19.
Maktha for the subject lands. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the Government did not produce any document before the Lower
Authority to substantiate that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Village is a
Government property except relying on the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in
CCCA.No.84/1982. The findings of the Lower Authority on this aspect are that the Hon’ble High Court gave the findings in CCCA.No.84/1982 basing on the 17 report of the Joint Collector, R.R.District, in File No.B3/8789/1985 to
B3/8855/1985 stating that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan
Village is a Government land. It is significant to see that the present claimants are not parties to O.S.No.906/1977 on the file of II Addl.Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, which was filed by some third party and the findings in the said suit was carried before the Hon’ble High Court in CCCA.No.84/1982, to which also present claimants are not parties. It is settled law that any findings recorded by a competent Court of law are not binding on the persons, who are not parties to the proceedings before the Court. Since the present claimants, who are the successors in interest of late Salar Jung-III, are not parties to either
O.S.No.906/1977 or CCCA.No.84/1982, the findings therein are not binding on
them, as rightly held by the Lower Authority in the impugned order.
It is seen from the record that the suit in O.S.No.906/1977 was filed by one 20.
Mahmood Hassan Khan on the file of II Addl.Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming rights in respect of different lands in different Villages including the land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Villqage. The Government represented by
Secretaries of Revenue and Forest Departments were parties and they filed
Written Statements opposing the claim of plaintiff therein. As observed by the
Lower Court, the Government in the written statements of the said suit has not taken any objection to the claim on the ground that it is barred by Sec.5 of
A.P.Forest Act, 1967, which plea is taken in the present case. That apart, in the instant case, notification U/s.4 of the Act was issued on 12-8-1971 notifying that an extent of 570 acres in Sy.No.201/1 including 102-00 acres of Sahebnagar
Village was proposed to be declared as reserve forest. Section 5 of A.P.Forest
Act, 1967, clearly bars the entertaining of any suit by a Civil Court in between the notification issued U/s.5 and the notification to be issued under Sec.15 of the
Act. At the same time, it is to be seen that till the commencement of enquiry for the impugned orders by the Lower Authority, notification U/s.15 was not issued.
18
In view of bar for entertainment of any suit U/s.5 of the A.P.Forest Act, once notification was issued, the remedy left for the claimants is to prefer a claim only.
This reasoning is also fortified in view of the fact that the Government has not raised the ground that U/s.5 of the A.P.Forest Act suits are barred between
Sec.4 notification and notification to be issued U/s.15 of the Act in the appeal
before CCCA.No.84/1982. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claimants that A.P.Forest Act, 1967 is a Special Enactment, which provides different provisions authorizing the Settlement Officer appointed U/s.4(c) of the
Act to decide the rights of parties covered by Sec.4 Notification. When once the suit is barred U/s.5 of the said Act, the alternative mechanism for deciding the claims of parties, if any, is to prefer a claim before the Forest Settlement Oficer.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that once law 21.
bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts for entertaining any suit, the power of High
Court in hearing an appeal from the decision of a lower Court is also affected and in support of it placed reliance in the case of Khleel Ahmed Khan v. Malka
Mehar Nigar Begum & others reported in AIR 1954 (Allahabad) 362. In the instant case, as already said, Sec.5 of A.P.Forst Act, 1967 clearly bars entertaining of suit by a Civil Court in between Sec.4 Notification and the
Notification to be issued U/s.15 of the Act. In the case of Dharuv Green Field
Limited v. Sukham Singh & others reported in 2002(5) ALT 6, the Apex Court held that if any provision is made in the Act for determination by the authorities specified therein, entertainment of any suit in spite of the bar created by the statute amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act and the same is illegal.
One of the submission of the learned counsel for the 22.
appellant/Government is that the claimants have got impleaded themselves in the Writ Peittion No.19942/2005 filed by Baktawar Begum & 11 others before the
Hon’ble High, in which the Writ Petitioners sought for exclusion of the present
19 subject lands. Therefore, the Lower Authority ought not to have adjudicated the claim of claimants, as the subject matter is subjudiced before the High Court of
A.P. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that Bakthawar
Begum & 11 others were declared as successors of one Syed Ahmed and sole owners of Ac.100-00 gts of land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village allotted by the Receiver-cum-Commissioner, Estate Salar Jung with possession upon their application dt.15-6-1963. They approached the District Collector for release of the said land and the District Collector vide Memo
No.F1/4748/2003, dt.4-8-2005 rejected their application holding that it is a
Government land as per the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in
CCCA.No.84/82 dt.16-8-1985. Aggrieved by the said findings in
CCCA.No.84/82, they approached with a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No.19942/2005 claiming themselves as owners of the said land. It is pertinent to bear in mind that in CCCA.No.84/82, the present claimants are not parties. Hence, the orders therein are not binding on them. The plaintiffs in
CCCA.No.84/82 approached the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by filing an appeal in A.S.No.1054/2010 claiming that they are the sold owners of Ac.100-00 gts of land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar and sought for confirmation of the assignment deeds, which were made in pursuance of the allotment of made by the Receiver- cum-Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed by orders dt.25-09-2013.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the appeal preferred O.S.A
No.47/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court allowed it by setting aside the Judgment Decree in A.S.No.1054/2010 dt.25-9-2013, holding that the claimants herein are necessary parties to main appeal.
It is pertinent to bear in mind that the Lower Authority is competent 23.
authority under the provisions of A.P.Forest Act to settle the claims of parties, who preferred the claim in pursuance of Sec.4 notification and there is no other forum notified under the Act to adjudicate the claims arising out of the A.P.Forest 20
Act, 1967. Bakthawar Begtum ought to have approached the Lower Authority to settle the claim, as per the law laid down as already said, in the case of
Dharuv Green Field Limited v. Sukham Singh & others reported in 2002(5)
ALT 6, if any provision is made in the Act for determination by the authorities specified therein, entertainment of any suit in spite of the bar created by the statute amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act and the same is illegal.
In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, it is not open for any authority except the Forest Settlement Officer to adjudicate the claim arising out of the claim submitted after issuance of notification U/s.4 of the
A.P.Forest Act, 1967. Since the present claimants are not parties to
CCCA.No.84/82, the findings therein are not binding on them, because the findings therein is a Judgment in personam, but not Judgment in Rem.
One of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Government is 24.
that the Lower Authority ought to have seen that the properties of Salar Jung-III are subject matter of partition in CS.No.13/58 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of
A.P and a preliminary decree was also passed in the year 1959 and the present subject lands are not forming part of said suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is the property belonging to Salar Jung-III. For this, the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that as per the terms of Memorandum of
Compromise in CS.13/58 dt.5-3-1959 dt.5-3-1959, plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11, 13, 15 to21 to 39, 41 to 72, 75 to 99 and 101 to 110 received the shares declared therein in full satisfaction by treating the unit as Rs.1/- or 192 paise in all properties with every description moveable or immovable owned and possessed by Nawab Yousuf Ali Khan, Salar Jung-III, as that may be available for partition by then. Subsequently, the Jagir Administrator in the letter
No.808/CH, dt.24-4-1954, ordered for release from the integration, as they did not come under the purview of Jagir Abolition Act. Thus, the subject lands are matter of partition among the successors of Salar Jung-III.
21
The Government filed a brief note stating that the Board of Revenue 25.
allotted an extent of 570 acres out of the total area of Ac.770-36 gts in
Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village in the year 1953. Notification U/s. 4 of the A.P. Forest Act was approved by the Government and published in the
District Gazette on 26-7-1971. The Government appointed the Forest Settlement
Officer as per Sec.4(c) of the Act to consider the objections, if any and enquire into the same. Thereafter, the claimants after obtaining orders with regard to succession to Salar Jung-III in O.S.No.156/1980 and OP.No.1451/1983 filed the claim for 102 acres of land in Sy.No.201/1. Thereafter, the enquiry was made for the claim of the claimants. Hence, the question of subject lands are not part of
CS.13/58 does not arise.
Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that U/s.2 of 26.
A.P.Forest Conservation Act, 1980, permission of Government of India is required before ordering exclusion of subject lands and the interpretation given by the Lower Authority is erroneous. In the instant case, it is not the exclusion of any forest land from the Forest Act, because it is the private patta land, which is sought to be excluded from the Forest Block by the Government. As per the law laid down by our own High Court in W.P.No.12137/1989 dt.24-8-1999 reported in
ALD 1999 586, permission of the Government of India is not required in respect of the private patta lands included in Mittoor Forest Block in Chittoor District falling in the jurisdiction of Chittoor West Forest Division. Sec.2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 provides for restriction on de-reservation of forests or use of forest lands for non-forestry purpose and that no State Government or
Authority shall make any order except with prior approval of the Central
Government of India. As already said, in the instant case, it is not de-reserving of the forest land, but exclusion of private patta land of Salar Jung-III. Hence, the Lower Authority has rightly discarded this objection raised by the
Government. The entire revenue record produced before the Lower Authority 22 has proved that the subject land was recorded in the name of Salar Jung-III along with the lands in Gurramguda Forest Block. The Lower Authority after considering the contentions and objections of both the parties, passed the orders on 15-10-2014 recording the finding that the subject land was purchased by the grandmother of Salar Jung-III and his successors in interest have right and title over the lands in Sy.No.201 of Sajebnagar Kalan Village and sought a revised map constituting the extents of Gurramguda and Turkayamjal Villages, to enable for sending proposals U/s.15 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967.
The learned counsel for the claimants also submitted a decision of out 27.
own High Court in the case of N.Rajgopal Reddy v. District Collector,
Chittoor in W.P.No.12137/1999, wherein it was held that the lands in question are agriculture and patta lands and when once the findings recorded by the
Forest Settlement Officer became final, the question of agricultural or not cannot be negotiated and objection of the Government that there is requirement of prior permission of the Central Government is rejected.
The report of the Collector dt.22-05-1967 submitted to the Secretary, Board 28.
of Revenue, Hyderabad in File No.B1/43658/65 reveals that Board of Revenue,
Hyderabad, in the year 1953 issued order in letter No.10815/17-A dt.23-7-1953 handing over AC.570-00 gts out of Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village, being unoccupied kacha lands and the Forest Department has taken over the possession. The Collector, Hyderabad also reported that Sahebnagar Kalan
Village is an Arazi Maktha land as per the pahanies of 1958, 1961-62, 1963-64 and 1964-65 and it was taken over under the Abolition of Jagir Act along with other Jagir Villages of Estate Salar Jung. Subsequently, in the year 1954 on the application of Salar Jung Estate, release orders were passed by the
Government Revenue Department treating these lands in Sahebnagar Kalan
Village as Arazi Maktha and not forming part of Jagir. That apart, the 23
Commissioner, Survey & Settlement, Board of Revenue, in his letter No.BPRT 2693/65 dt.30-10-1967 addressed to the Secretary, Revenue Department, stated that the Government appears to have ordered for inclusion of the said land in the forest area on wrong presumption that it is a Government land and continued to be treated as such even though the initial handover of the land to the Forest Department was irregular. The letter sent by the Dy.Collector/MRO,
Hayathnagar, baring No.C/3845/2007 dt.16-02-1008 also reveals that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Village is mentioned as Salar Jung Sarkari in the pattedar column in the pahanies of 1975-76 to 1982-83. It also reflects about the correspondence made by the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad on 24-4-1954.
Thus, the material on the record shows that as per the Jagir 29.
Administrator’s letter dt.24-4-1954 and the Judgment of Dy.Jagir Administrator in
File No.19/C dt.26-9-1955, the lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan
Village are Arazi Maktha lands (purchased lands). The Special Tribunal-cum-
Addl.District Judge in OP.No.316/1988 also held that the lands are Arazi Maktha
Lands and private lands of Salar Jung Estate and the provisions of Jagir
Abolition At are not applicable to these lands. The impugned orders also reveal that the pahanies furnished by the Tahsilddar, Hayathnagar Mandal also disclose that the lands are Arazi Maktha lands and Salar Jung was the original pattedar and owner. The appellant except claiming that it is a Government land, no revenue record has been placed before the Lower Authority in support of it.
On the other hand, the revenue record which includes pahanies shows that the land was recorded in the name of Salar Jung-III as pattedar and owner of the land till 1982-83. The Lower Authority having considered the material available all these aspects has rightly allowed the claim and ordered for exclusion of the subject land from the notification of Gurramguda Forest Block. Hence, the points are answered in favour of the claimants.
24
POINT No.5: In the light of the above findings, it is to follow that the order 30.
of the Lower Authority under appeal do not call for any interference.
In the result, the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of September, 2016.
PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITENSSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
NIL
PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.