QAZI NAWABUDDIN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order, dtd. 24/3/2023 in Case No.F1/911/2019 passed by the District Collector, Adilabad District, the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The Case No.F1/911/2019 is filed by the petitioner stating that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.6-35 guntas in Sy.No.2 situated at Bhadi Village, Bela Mandal, Adilabad District (herein after referred to as 'the subject land'). The subject land was originally stood in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner by name Azeezuddin. The subject land was Qazi Service Inam Land, which was granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner for performing the duties of 'Qazayat' and maintenance of Jama Masjid Bela during his lifetime and after the demise of the grandfather of the petitioner, the subject land was succeeded by the father of the petitioner by name Abdul Ghani, who cultivated the subject land during his lifetime. Since, the subject land is Qazi Service Inam land, which cannot be alienated but it can only be heritable. The subject land was granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner in consideration of the performance of services in the capacity of Qazi in the Muslim community. The petitioner and his father succeeded to the same being the legal heirs of the original Inamdar and continuing to discharge the duties as Qazi; the name of the petitioner was also found in the report of the Survey Commissioner at Column No.9 of Survey Wakf Property and the subject land was also notified as Wakf Property in A.P. Gazette No.A Supplement to Part-2, dtd. 4/1/1990. It is further stated that in the year, 1963, the father of the petitioner, during his life time, executed an unregistered lease deed in favour of respondent No.4 for Rs.1,200.00 only for a period of six years and the said lease period was expired in the year, 1969. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner requested respondent No.4 to return back the physical possession of the subject land. Since, respondent No.4 refused to deliver the same by continuing in unauthorized encroachment of the same, which is detrimental to the right, title, interest and physical possession of the petitioner over the subject land and having vexed with the illegal encroachment over the subject land by respondent No.4, the petitioner had approached the Authority of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad with a request to evict respondent No.4 from the illegal encroachment and unlawful possession over the subject land and sought for restoration of the same in favour of the petitioner. The then Revenue Divisional Officer vide order, dtd. 18/9/2003 in proceedings No.J/2911/2002 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bela Mandal to hand over the possession of the subject land to the petitioner without standing crop by conducting panchanama. Accordingly, a panchanama was drawn on 20/1/2004 and the physical possession of the subject land was delivered to the petitioner. Thereafter, challenging the order, dtd. 18/9/2003 passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed W.P.No.1526 of 2004 before this Court on the premise that an appeal is being preferred before respondent No.1 i.e., District Collector, Adilabad on 22/12/2003 and the same is still pending, wherein no interim orders were passed suspending the order, dtd. 18/9/2003 passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad. This Court, vide order, dtd. 30/1/2015 directed respondent No.4 therein (respondent No.1 herein) to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months observing that there is violation of principles of natural justice and granted stay of dispossession till the disposal of the appeal. In view of the said order, respondent No.1 is supposed to hear the Appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 against the order, dtd. 18/9/2003 passed by respondent No.2 and adjudicate the same on merits but respondent No.1, instead of adjudicating the appeal filed by respondents No.4 to 6, had erroneously passed the impugned order, dtd. 24/3/2023 and arrayed the petitioner as petitioner/plaintiff and respondent Nos.4 to 6 as respondents/defendants without properly understanding the grievance put forth before him. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Heard Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record.