Date: .11.
2024
To,
The District Revenue Officer,
Hyderabad District,
Government of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: Land Records - Hakeempet (V) Shaikpet Mandal - Hyderabad District,
- Telangana State, Sy. No: 102/4/2 for an extent of Ac. 09.17 Gts. -
Demarcation and Mutation of Land and correction of entries in Town
Survey Land Records in favour of Sri. Dr. T. Rama Chandra Row -
Requested - Regarding.
Ref:- 1. Copy of order vide order No: Al.85/l1/56, Dt: 22.10.1956 of the
Collector, Hyderabad District, Land Records file No.
E3/236/59/261/17/56 Dt: 18.09.1959
2. Lr Rc. No. F2/10191/63, Dt: 02.08.1963 of the Collector,
Hyderabad.
3. Lr. Board Ref. BB4/504/64, Dt: 26.02.1965 of the Board of
Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
4. G.O. Ms. No. 804, (Revenue) Dt: 03.06.1965 & G.O. Rt. No.
2166, Dt: 23.10.1976.
5. W.P. No. 5125/1980 of the Hon'ble High Court Court of Andhra
Pradesh.
6. Sale Deed Document No. 387 of 1967, Dt: 22.02.1967, SRO,
Khairthabad, Hyderabad Dist.
7. Memorandum of Agreement of sale, Dated: 18.12.1993 in favour
of Sri. T. Ramachandra Row.
8. W.P.No: 13173/1996 and W.P. MP No. 12173/2007 and W.P.
MP No. 24174/2008 ofHigh Court of the Andhra Pradesh.
9. LGC.No. 187/1997 and W.P.No. 25763/2001, of HighCourt of
Andhra Pradesh and SLP. No. 8872 of 2005 of Supreme Court of
India.
10. Lr. No. 271/2005 dated: 28.04.2005, The Legal Opinion of the
Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh Government.
11. Govt. Memo No. 8345/Assign.III-1/06-1 Dt: 23.03.2006
12. Lr. RC No. B2/2300/2006 dated: 04.04.2006 of the Collector,
Hyderabad Dist.
Page 1 of 9
13. W.A.No. 1356/2001 and W.A.No. 982/2002 of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
14. Relinquishment Deed, Dated: 30-03-2009 in favour of Sri. T.
Ramachandra Row.
15. W.P.No. 4324 of 2010 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
16. Lr. No. I1/9462 of 2005 dated. 27.09.2008 of the District
Collector, Hyderabad.
17. Hon'ble CCC (III Addl. CJ) O.S.No 964 of 2015 in IA No 2854
of 2015.
18. Lr. RC.No. E6/I1/11079/2008, Dt: 12.09.2016 of the Collector,
Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.
19. Hon'ble City Civil Court O.S.No 30 of 2016
20. Lr. vide Opinion No 15 and 27 of 2018 dated: 06.06.2018.
Additional Advocate General State of Telangana.
21. Arbitration petition 99 of 2022 of Hon'ble High Court,
Telanagna
22. W.P. No. 17781 of 2023 of the Hon'ble High Court Telangana.
------ *** ------
I put forth the following few lines for your kind consideration and
benevolent action.
I submit that in the reference 1 stcited during the year 1956, the then
collector, Hyderabad District had issued orders alienated land in favour of Sri.
Mohammad Moinuddin Qureshi to an extent of Ac. 12.02 Gts. in Sy. No. 102
of Hakimpeta Village, Shaikpet Mandal, of Hyderabad Dist. after payment of
land cost of 16 times of the then prevailing land revenue for Sub-division and
demarcation of the land alienated to Mr. Md. Moinuddin Qureshi. Later, the
same was sub-divided as 102/4/2.
As per orders of the Collector the individual (Mohd. Moinuddin
Qureshi) have finish the process and implementing the Supplementary
Sethwar vide no. B/34/56/57, Dt: 31.12.1956 after phodi was done and
patta was effected in Fasli patti of 1957 by the concerned Revenue
Authorities.
Page 2 of 9
In the reference 2nd cited the Collector, Hyderabad has sent proposals
to the Board of Revenue of Andhra Pradesh for the cancellation of the land
granted to the said Ex-serviceman pointing out certain defects in ranting.
In the reference 3rd cited The Board of Revenue of Andhra pradesh
was issued order of Regulation of the assignments by dropping the proposal
of the Collector for cancellation after examine several Revenue records and
primarily the assignment made by virtue of their being Ex- servicemen and
also the Board stated that on the recommendation of the Laoni Committee the
then Collector had sanctioned an area of 10 Acres of land (Actually it is an
Acres 12.02 gts.) to Sri. Mohd. Moinudding Quresh in S. No. 102/4 of
Hakeempeta Village and in case of Mohd. Moinuddin Quresh
Supplementary sethwar was already issued vide No. B / 34 / 56 / 57
Dt:31.12.1956 of the Collector, after Phodi was done and patta was
effected in Faisal Patti of 1957.
However in the reference 4th cited the Government (G.O. Ms. 804, Dt:
13.06.1965 & G.O. Rt. No. 2166, Dt: 23.10.1976) was cancelled the grants in
favor of the said Ex-serviceman including the predecessor in title.
In the reference 5th cited The Hon'ble High Court vide W.P. No.
5125/1980 on 14.08.1986 have Quashed the said G.O. Rt. No. 2166 (In which
Govt. have cancelled the granting of assignment land to assignees ) and
directed that the land assigned now shall be treated as alienation instead of
assignment in accordance with the rules contained in AP Land Revenue Act.
(Telangana Area) 1317 Fasli and the so called circular No. 14 of 1954 will not
be applicable in instant case (Mohd. Moinuddin Quresh).
In the reference 6th cited the Moinuddin Qureshi had sold out the said
land in Sy.No. 102/4/2 for an extent of Ac.12.02 Gts. in favour of Sri. Jatinraj
Jain S/o. Hastimal Jain, resident of Gunfoundry, Hyderabad vide regd.
document No: 387/1967, Dt: 22.02.1967 during the year 1967. Since 1967 the
land was in the possession and enjoyment of Sri. Jatin Raj Jain. In the
meanwhile, the said land property was mortgaged by Jatin Raj Jain in the year
1977 at SBH, Kamareddy Branch and later on released in the year 1988. Later
the Land owner Jatin Raj Jain was expired in the year 1990. The Legal Heirs of
the Jatin Raj Jain was executed a GPA (Regd. No. 46 Dt: 23.12.1992) to the
Chamanlal Jain, who is the Son-in-law of the Jatin Raj Jain in the year 1992
against the land in Sy.No. 102/4/2 for an extent of Ac. 12.02 Gts. situated at
Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad Dist.
In the reference 7th cited the GPA holder Sri. ChamanLal Jain who was
Page 3 of 9
given GPA by the LR's of Sri. Jatin Raj Jain executed a Memorandum of
Agreement of Sale in favour of Sri. T. Ramachandra Row S/o. T.S. Raghavan
in the year 1993 on 18.12.1993 for an extent of Ac.12.02 Gts. in Sy.No.
102/4/2 situated at Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal and executed one
authorization to represent them in the year 1996 as per the clause of the
agreement of 1993, in the department / any legal variations / any other matters
pertaining to the land mentioned above.
In the reference 8th cited the legal heirs of Jatin Raj Jain along with
GPA holder Chaman Lal Jain as filed an affidavit in W.P. M.P.12173 of 2007
and W.P. No. 24174/2008 in W.P. No. 13173/1996 under oath again re-
confirming the Agreement of Sale in favour of Sri. Dr. T. Ramachandra Row.
Further submitted that in the 9th reference cited the Government have
filed a Land grabbing case in the year 1997 vide LGC No 187/97 against the
legal heirs and GPA holder of said land in S.No. 102/4/2 and both the
Government and legal heirs and GPA holder approached upto APEX Court,
LGC 187 (Spl Court) of 1997 (disposed on 28.02.2001), W.P. 25763 (High
Court) of 2001 (disposed on 06.04.2005) and SLP No. 8872 (Supreme Court)
of 2005 (disposed on 30.09.2005) in all the stages the government was failed to
establish their appeal and finally APEX Court decreed that the said land is not a
Government land in the year 2005.
In the reference 10th cited the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh
Government was given legal opinion to the Secretary of Government in that he
stated the allegations made in the LGC clearly indicated that entry into
possession of the land is referable to the assignments granted by the State in
favour of the 1st respondent (Mohd. Moinuddin Qureshi) and the possession
was handed over by the State on assignment to the 1st respondent (Mohd.
Moinudding Qureshi), who in turn handed over possession to the purchasers. In
such a situation the state cannot claim that either the 1st respondent (Mohd.
Moinuddin Qureshi) or purchasers from him are of the land grabber. However
the Advocate General made it clear that the remedies if any, available to the
petitioner - State of Andhra Pradesh are left to open since the case has been
disposed of on the ground of jurisdiction alone and not on merits and also the
Davison Bench there was no error committed by special Court in dismissing
L.G.C. filed by the writ petitioner.
In the reference 11th cited the Government issued Memo
Page 4 of 9
No.8345/Assign.III-1/06-1 Dt: 23.03.2006, to the Collector Hyderabad and the
Mandal Revenue Shaikpet with a request to examine matter in the and send a
detail report to the Government immediately on the application filed by the Sri.
T. Ramachandra Row on 20.02.2006.
Accordingly in the reference 12th cited the Collector Hyderabad
instructed the then MRO., Shaikpet and the then Deputy Director, Survey and
Land Records, Hyderabad vide his Lr. No. B2/2300/2006 dated 04.04.2006 to
submit a detailed report in the matter, immediately. In this regard, the deputy
Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad and the M.R.O., Shaikpet
jointly conducted a survey in the month of April, 2006 and prepared a sketch
map for the said survey no. 102/4/2 situated at Hakeempet village, Shaikpet
Mandal and sketch map and reduced the extent of the land to Acres 9.17 gts.
from the actual extent of Ac. 12.02 gts. and measures the extent in each town
survey number as (TS No. 29 of 9/H - Ac. 2.16 gts, TS No. 1 of 12/J - Ac. 5.20
gts., and TS No.3 of 12/J - Ac. 1.21 gts., Total an extent of Ac. 9.17 gts) in
favour of Sri.T.Ramachandra Row and the report of the then officers is in
silence.
And also I bring to your kind notice that the Town survey was done
during the period 1965-69 the said survey number converted to TSLR. The
survey number is not incorporated in TSLR by the Revenue Authorities as well
as the GHMC Authorities as per Supplementary Sethwar, Survey settlement
records and Pahanis at the item of Town Survey. Both the Revenue Authorities
and GHMC Authorities are failed to incorporate the said S. No 102/4/2 in the
TSLR as per the records available with them.
I further submit that in the reference 13 th cited the Division bench of
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in the judgment setting
aside the claims of M/s Raghava Co-operative Housing Society in the said land
with fake and fabricated documents and directed for mutation of names in
favour of Rival claimant (infavour Sri. T. Ramachandra Row) by approaching
appropriate revenue forum of their respective in the town survey and other
Revenue records. Subsequently, several representations were made by the
undersigned before the Revenue Authorities.
In the reference 14th cited, the Legal heirs after the Division Bench
Judgment entered into the "RELINQUISHMENT DEED" in favour of Dr T
Ramachandra Row making him as the absolute owner including alienation
rights.
In the reference 15th cited during the year 2010 the legal heirs of the Jatin
Raj Jain along with their GPA holder. Chaman Lal Jain has filed a W.P.No.
Page 5 of 9
4324 of 2010 and filed an affidavit in High Court categorically stating that their
father i.e., Late Jatin Raj Jain never executed any Agreement of Sale in favour
of M/s. Raghava Co-operative Housing Society and stated that Raghava
Society documents are forged and fabricated.
While matter stood thus one M/s. Raghava Co-operative Housing
Society with a malafied motivation have created taken fabricated agreements
made in 1975 by the Jatin Raj Jain though the original deed is under mortgage
with SBH, Kamareddy at that time. Moreover they tried to get mutation of the
said land in favour of us on a direction of Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.No.
30103/1998 (disposed on 25.06.2001) by submitting the fake and fabricated
documents which was setting aside by the Hon'ble High Court in common
Judgment on 26.02.2009 in Writ appeals W.A.1356/2001 (Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh) and W.A. 982/2002 (T.Ramachandra Row). Further it is submitted
that it is clearly evident that M/s. Raghava Co-operative Housing Society
committed unlawful and cheating practices and given false information to the
Hon'ble High Court and subsequently criminal case was registered vide CC No.
1287/2003 of III Additional Chief Metro Politan Magistrate Court, Nampally
for their trespass, complaint made by the then Tahildhar.
Further documents of Raghava Society were sent to the Forensic
Departments by the under signee (Dr. T. Ramachander Row), the Forensic
Department have proved the documents submitted to the Hon'ble High Court is
fake and fabricated.
In the light of above fact the documents of unregistered agreement of
sale relied upon by M/s. Raghava Co-operative Housing Society cannot be any
credence.
In the reference 16th cited Keeping in view of Dispute ( Inter - Se)
between the several societies, the Govt. have instructed to collector and Deputy
Director Survey and Land Records Hy d. in Memo . No.101204/Assn -III/1/90,
Dt.6.6.2008 to conduct s urvey with representatives covering all Societies
covered in their presence.
Accordingly, the Deputy Director, Servey and land Records, Hyd.
Conducted a survey by issuing the Noti ces to all the societies and surveyed the
land in the presence of said Societies and submit a report with sketch and the
Deputy Director reported that Survey has been done to Demarcate the Village
boundaries of Hakeempeta and Shaikpeta Villages with refe rence to traverse.
Survey Records which was obtained from the central survey office in his letters
1).Lr Rc No..A5/413/2008, Dt. 13.08.2008, and 2) LR. RC.No.A5/606/2007,
Dt: 15.02.2008.
Page 6 of 9
After completion of Survey . The matter has been discussed with the
representatives of the all Societie s in two Spells and have arrived at a
conclusions and Settlement in regarding boundary dispute of Shaikpeta and
Hakeempeta Villages an d fix the Boundary stones also in the land. And the
settlement has been written on Rs.100.00 Bond Paper with signatures of the all
connected Societies representatives and produced the same to the Collectors
Office. Hence the long pending Inter Se- Dispute regarding Boundaries of
Shaikpet and Hakeempet Villages was settled.
In the reference 17th cited it is bring to your kind notice that Sri T.
Ramachandra Rao filed OS No 964 of 2015 and IA No:2854 of 2015 at III
Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad for grant of permanent
injunction against the M/s. Unitech Real Estate Builders Limited, Raghava
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and 36 others. For not disturbing the
peaceful possession in survey no 102/4/2 situated at Hakeempet village,
Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. The court made following "The Honourable
Court Grant a permanent injunction with direction to the respondents are
hereby restrained from causing any interference with the possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition scheduled property on 13th day
April 2016.
In the reference 18th cited The Collector Hyderabad was sent a detailed
report to the Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue Department,
Telangana State.
In the reference 20th cited It is imperative to mention here earlier the
Government addressed a letter to the Addl. Advocate General for the State of
Telangana, based on the report received from the then Collector, Hyderabad Di
strict seeking to offer opinion on recourse left to Government. In reply to the
same, the then Addl. Advocate General for the State of Telangana through his
letter vide Opinion No.15 and 27 of 2018, dt: 06.06.2018, opined that
assignment of land in favour of Shri Mohiuddin Qureshi, admeasuring Ac.12-
02 Guntas in Survey No. 102/1 situated in Hakeempet village, Shaikpet
Mandal, Hyderabad under Laoni Rules, 1950 stood confirmed and the State is
not entitled to set up any claim in respect of the above property. In so far as the
conflicting claims between the two sets of petitioners/appellants are concerned
and also in view of the fact that the said parties have already availed remedies
before the competent authorities and also before Civil Court, the authorities are
left with no other option but to abide by the decisions of the competent court of
law.
In the reference 21st cited Further it is submitted that M/s. Theme
Page 7 of 9
Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, who is claiming the rights from
Banjara Kunj Plot Owners Association (Raghava Co-operative Housing
Society), filed Arbitration Application No. 99 of 2022 against Sri. Sajjan Raj
Jain S/o. Late Jatin Raj Jain (LRs) & (18) others in which M/s. Unitech Real
Estate Builders Ltd., M/s. Banjara Kunj Plot Owners Welfare Association and
M/s. Raghava Cooperative Housing Society Limtied were made respondents
R-5, R-6, & R-17 respectively, but not made Govt as party, filed before the
HOn'ble High Court with a plea "pleased to pass an order to appoint Arbitrator
in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.01.2015 between the
applicants and respondents", which has been dismissed on 23.02.2024 and the
operate portion is extracted hereunder for its brevity:
In view of the pendency of the aforesaid inter se disputes, in the absence
of the 5th respondent. Arbitrator cannot adjudicate and pass an award with
regard to the subject property. If the applicant is having any grievance with
regard to sale of subject property by respondents 1 to 4 in violation of order
passed by this court in the aforesaid Writ petition and Arbitration Application,
it remedy is elsewhere, it cannot file the present application and seek
appointment of arbitrator in the absence of 5th respondent.
Viewed from any angle, this application is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed."
In the reference 22nd cited the Hon'ble High Court grant a stay with a
directions not registered and release the pending document No.P67/2023 on 7th
July 2023 and also that the Joint Sub Registrar-IRO (OB), Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad (South) was refused in refusal order No 15 of 2024 on 23.04.2024.
In the reference 19th cited Sri. T. Ramachandra Row filed a declaration
suit in O.S. No 30 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Chief Judgment City
Civil Court, Hyderabad against Smt. Tarabai and others (LRS of Jatin Raj
Jain), M/s. Raghava Housing Society and others which is pending for
adjudication.
During the course of the establishment of facts with regard to claim of
the under signed (The Agreement and Relinquishee holder of heirs) the said
land in Sy. No. 102/4/2 for an extent of Ac. 9.17 gts., the officials of Revenue
Department did not gone into the facts and merits of the case and finally the
Honble High Court needed to step in and said the following facts straightly.
That the rival claimant should approach an appropriate forum for mutation of
their names in the Revenue Records in W.A. No 982/2002. Making it clear that
the rival claimant should approach the Revenue authority for implementation of
their names in the Revenue Records.
In view of the facts mentioned in detail as above, I pray the authorities
Page 8 of 9
to kindly direct the officials of Survey and Land Records Departments and
Revenue Department to conduct the Survey for demarcating the said land in
Sy.No 102/4/2 for an extent of Ac. 9.17 gts, co-relating the land to the town
survey numbers and mutation of the undersignee name in Land Revenue
records and correction of entries in Town survey Land Records also at the
earliest.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(DR. T. RAMA CHANDRA ROW)
H No 8-2-310/R/22,
Road No 14, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034
Mobile: 9849721646
Enclosures:
1. All the documents enclosed
Copy to:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Dept., Govt. of Telangana, Hyd.
2. The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, State of Telangana, Hyd.
3. The District Collector, Hyderabad
4. The Additional Collector, Hyderabad
5. Joint Director Survey and Land Records, State of Telangana, Hyd.
Page 9 of 9
