SYED HABIB ZAINUL ABEDIN Vs. YUSUFA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. The applicants who are the original petitioners have filed this application praying for restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from alienating and/or creating third party interest in the property in dispute being Gut No.222 admeasuring 19 Acres and 30 Gunthas of Village Kinwat District Nanded.

(2.) As can be gathered from the submissions and the Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kinwat dated 28.09.2012 in a proceeding filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein against the petitioners under Section 8 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (herein after 'the Tenancy Act') read with Section 2A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter 'the Abolition of Inams Act'). He was called upon to decide the nature of the Inam and devolution of occupancy rights. By the impugned judgment, the Tahsildar found that one Immamoddin was the original Inamdar of the lands survey Nos.125 and 126. After his demise, these lands devolved on his two sons Habiboddin and Hafizoddin. Survey No.125/A and Survey No.126/A fell to the share of Habiboddin and Survey No.125/AA and Survey No.126/AA fell to the share of Hafizoddin. The Tahsildar after extending opportunity of being heard to both the sides concluded that after abolition of Inams the lands occupied by Habiboddin were regranted to him. The petitioners are his heirs. As far as the lands which had fallen to the share of Hafizoddin, one Habibur Raheman, the predecessor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 claimed to be his tenant. It was held that he was a tenant and lands which had fallen to the share of Hafizoddin were regranted to him. The occupancy price was also paid by him and it was held that it was a Madatmash Inam. After demise of Habibur Raheman name of his wife Karimmunisa Begum and daughter Rahimunisa Begum were mutated by Mutation Entry No.1602 to these lands. During the course of implementation of Consolidation Scheme it was allotted Gut No.222. The petitioners objected to such mutation and after holding the Inquiry, the learned Tahsidlar refuted the objection raised by the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners challenged the order of Tahsildar in an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat who dismissed the Appeal and the order was confirmed by the Additional Collector, Nanded and subsequently by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad when the petitioner.