IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20003 of 1999 Between: Mirza Wala Qadar Baig S/o. Mirza Moghul Jahandar Sadiq Baig R/o. House No.11-4-624/1, A.C.Guards Road, Opp:SBI, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (L) Department A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not disposing of the claims of the Petitioner as regards the Estate of Late MIR Mahboob Ali Khan alias JAHANDAR NAWAZ JUNG as bad illegal and consequentially direct the Respondents to settle the claims of the Petitioner in such time bound programme as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to fix and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.JAGDISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20003 of 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the inaction of the respondents in not disposing of the claims of the petitioner as regards the estate of Late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, alias Jahandar Nawaz Jung, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to settle the claims of the petitioner in a time bound manner. Petitioner claims that late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, (popularly known as Jahandar Nawaz Jung), a jagirdar owning vast estates, had, during his lifetime and with his own money, acquired Maqtha Sanghiguda. Petitioner would contend that this property was Zar- Kharid i.e. self-acquired and was the Matruka of late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan alias Jahandar Nawaz Jung, that, after the Hyderabad Abolition of Jagirs Regulations, later known as the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Jagirs Regulation 1358 Fasli, (hereinafter referred as ‘Jagir Regulations’), came into force, jagirs were abolished, that, even before the Jagirs Regulations came into force, the entire estate, including the Jagir, of Late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan was taken over by the State of Hyderabad and was kept under the control of the Court of Wards and, on the Jagir Regulations coming into force, the entire Jagir, including the Zar-Kharid properties of late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, was transferred to the Jagir Administrator. Petitioner would submit that the two daughters of late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, who were his successors and legal heirs, had, during their life time, made several attempts to retrieve the Zar- Kharid properties from the jagir administration, that, after thorough enquiry, an interim allowance was awarded and commutation thereof paid to the beneficiaries, that, subsequently, Sri Bahbood Ali Khan, the grand son of late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, had requested that the maqtha lands, at Sanghiguda within Shamshabad mandal, be released in their favour, that, in Muntakhab No.5078 dated 21.03.1952, Sanghiguda was declared as an Arazi Inam, that the income accrued thereunder was deleted from the award of the Jagir and the payments were adjusted, that Maqtha Sanghiguda was later released from the purview of the Jagir Regulations in favour of the first petitioner, that this fact, intimated by the Jagir Administrator through his proceedings dated 07.05.1981, required further suitable action to be taken, that, consequently, several representations were made to the Government seeking release of the lands and, since no action was taken, the petitioner had no other alternative but to approach this Court. In his counter affidavit, the second respondent would submit that administration of the entire jagir of Jahandar Nawaz Jung, including Maqtha Sanghiguda, was taken over on 28.09.1949 under the Jagir Regulations, that this Jagir was under the supervision of the Court of Wards which was later released on 01.04.1959 on a representation of one of the beneficiaries of the Jagir, that the jagir commutation was revised on 17.12.1963 by deleting the previously included income of the said Maqta, that final commutation award was also issued on 29.02.1964, that, after a lapse of 14 years, a joint representation was made by the petitioner on 11.11.1977 for payment of the commutation amount of Maqtha Sanghiguda, that, on the matter being referred to it, the Government, vide memo no.94/L1/78-11 dated 10.11.1979, had declared that Maqtha Sanghiguda was an Arazi Inam and, accordingly, the Collector, Rangareddy District, was informed, vide letter dated 07.05.1981, that Maqtha Sanghiguda was released from the purview of the Jagir Regulations in favour of Sri Jahandar Nawaz Jung and, thereafter, the functioning of the office of the Jagir Administrator had ceased. It is further stated that, for determining the nature of the grant, the Inami Munthakhab should form the basis, that, according to Munthakhab No.5078 dated 21.03.1952, Sanghiguda was an Arazi Inam which attracted the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Inams Act’), that the petitioners were inamdars of the said maqtha and were only entitled for compensation under Section 3(2)(c) of the Inams Act. Sri T.Jagdish, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it was evident from the proceedings dated 07.05.1981 that maqta Sanghiguda, along with the others properties of late Jahandar Nawaz Jung, was with the Court of Wards from whom the entire estate was taken over by the Jagir Administrator, that, since maqta Sanghiguda was Zar Kharid (self acquired property and not a Jagir), the Jagir Administrator had no right to exercise jurisdiction thereupon, that he had rightly released the said property in favour of the petitioners’ ancestors, that the Government, by its memo dated 10.11.1979, could not confer upon itself the power to decide whether these lands were Inam lands or not and, since the Jagir Administrator had directed release of the said properties in favour of the petitioners’ ancestors, the order of the Jagir Administrator ought to have been complied with and the petitioner ought to have been put in possession of the property in question. Learned counsel would rely on GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. V TULSIRAM[1] in this regard. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were unaware of the contents of the proceedings dated 10.11.1979 till the said document was produced before this Court, that, as Maqta Sanghiguda was the self acquired property of late Jahandar Nawaz Jung, it devolved on the petitioners by succession, that it was not open to the Government, which was also a party like any other, to decide upon a lis to which it is a party and determine suo motu that these lands are inam lands, that the Munthakhab, wherein these lands were shown as inam lands, was prepared subsequent to the land being placed in the custody of the Court of Wards and, as it is evident that these lands were the self acquired properties of late Jahandar Nawaz Jung, the proceedings of the Jagir Administrator dated 07.05.1981 ought to have been implemented by the Government and possession of maqta Sanghiguda should have been handed over to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that these lands are inam lands, that it is only if these lands form part of the jagir, would the Jagir Administrator have jurisdiction and, as these lands did not come within the purview of the Jagir Abolition Regulations, the Jagir Administrator had no jurisdiction to determine the question whether or not this land was the self acquired property of late Jahandar Nawaz Jung. He would further contend that, since these lands were classified as inam lands in the revenue records and as all inams stood abolished on the coming into force of the Inams Act, these lands stood vested in the State and that the petitioners had no right or title over the said lands. He would further contend that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not adjudicate disputed questions of title or issue a mandamus directing delivery of possession of the property which, even according to the petitioner, exceeded 500 acres. He would submit that the relief sought for was not that the petitioners should be put in possession of these lands but was merely to direct the respondents to settle the claims of the petitioners and that their remedy, if any, was to seek redressal under the provisions of the Inams Act. Before examining the rival contentions, it is useful to take note of the relevant provisions of the Jagir Regulations. Under Regulation 4, no person shall be appointed to be, or be recognized as, a Jargirdar whether in succession to a deceased Jagirdar or otherwise after commencement of the regulation. Regulation 5(1) enables the Government to appoint a date for the transfer to the Government of the administration of jagirs. Under Regulation 5(2), on the date so appointed for any jagir, the Jagirdar shall make over the management of the Jagir to the Jagir Administrator and shall furnish him with an account of the revenue received and expenditure incurred on account of the jagir. Under Regulation 6(1), the Jagir shall be included in the Diwani from the appointed date, and shall be administered by the Jagir Administrator. Under Regulation 6(2), the powers, rights and liabilities of the Jagirdar, in relation to the Jagir, shall cease to be exercisable and enforceable by or against the jagirdar, and shall be exercisable and enforceable by or against the Jagir Administrator. Under Regulation 13(1), the Jagir Administrator shall maintain a separate account in respect of each jagir and shall afford every jagirdar reasonable facilities for inspection. Regulation 13(2) requires the Jagir Administrator to make advance payments to the Jagirdar in accordance with the rules made under the Regulations and to adjust the same when the net income of the jagir is distributed. Regulation 14 provides that the amounts payable to Jagirdars, under the Regulations, shall be deemed to be interim maintenance allowances payable until such time as the terms for the commutation of jagirs are determined. Regulation 15 provides that where a jagir is under the management of the Court of Wards, or of the Committee of Management, appointed by the Government, the duties of the Jagir Administrator under the regulations may, at the discretion of the Government, be discharged by the Court of Wards or the Committee of Management, as the case may be. Regulation 18 provides that nothing in the regulation shall affect (1) the personal property of Jagirdar or any property other than the jagir held by a Jagirdar, or; (b) any liability of a Jagirdar in respect of any loan taken from the Government. As a reference was made in the counter affidavit to the proceedings of the Government, in memo no.94/L1/78-11 dated 10.11.1979, this Court directed the respondents to produce a copy thereof. Consequently, the said memo was placed for the Court’s perusal. It is evident therefrom that the Jagir Administrator had sought clarification, vide letter dated 18.01.1978, with regards payment of the commutation amount in respect of Maqtha Sanghiguda, that the Government had examined the matter in the light of the reports from the Jagir Administrator and the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and had observed that, in the Munthakhab, the nature of properties were mentioned as Arazi Inam, that the provisions of the Inams Act were attracted, that the inamdar was entitled to compensation under Section 3(2)(g) of the said Act, that the nature of the property was the crux of the issue, that supervision of the Court of Wards was a temporary feature and would not influence the character of the Inam and that orders of the Jagir Administrator, which were contrary to the nature of the property mentioned in the munthakhab, could not bind the Government to any financial liability. Since the petitioners claim of title over maqta Sanghiguda revolves around the proceedings of the Jagir Administrator dated 07.05.1981, it is necessary to note its contents. The said letter dated 07.05.1981 was addressed by the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad to the Collector, Rangareddy District, on the subject of release of Sanghiguda estate of Jahandar Nawaz Jung from the operation of the Jagir Abolition Regulations. It is noted therein that the estate of Jahandar Nawaz Jung was taken over under the provisions of the Jagir Regulations vide Notification No.14, Revenue Department, dated 24.09.1949, that, at the time of transfer of administration to the Government, the said estate was under the supervision of the trust of Jagirs, that the estate was later released from the supervision of the Court of Jagirs from 01.04.1950 in favour of Smt. Kareemunnisa Begum, that, in accordance with the income statement furnished by the Nizam Court of Wards, interim allowance under the Jagir Regulations and commutation sum under the provisions of the Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1358 Fasli were paid to the beneficiaries, that later a request was made by Sri Bahbood Ali Khan, (heir of Smt. Karim Khatoon), to release Maqta Sanghiguda from the operation of the Jagir Regulations and to delete the income of the said maqta from the commutation Award of the Jagir, that, according to Muntakhab No.5078 dated 21.03.1952, Sanghiguda was an Arazi Inam, that the income of the said Arazi Inam was, therefore, deleted from the commutation award of the Jagir and payments were transferred/adjusted. The Jagir Administrator informed the District Collector that Maqta Sanghiguda was released from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagir) Regulations in favour of Sri Mirza Wala Hyder and others. As noted hereinabove, while the petitioners would claim to be the owners of the lands in maqta Sanghiguda, and contend that it was Zar-kharid and self-acquired lands of their ancestor late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue would refer to the counter affidavit to contend that these lands were Inam lands, (shown as Arazi Inam in the Munthakhab), which stood vested in the State. It is no doubt true that where a person, who is considered to be a 'jagirdar' by the Government, comes before the Jagir administrator and contends that the land in respect of which the Government has issued the notification is not a 'jagir', but a private patta land of the 'jagirdar', the jagir administrator may be required to decide incidental issues in order to effectuate the provisions of the Regulations and, in case of a dispute, neither the Regulation, nor the Rules framed thereunder, confer power on the government to decide questions regarding title over these lands or determine the rights of parties. (V.Tulsiram1). It cannot, however, be lost sight of that the jurisdiction of the Jagir Administrator, under the Jagir Abolition Regulations, is limited only to Jagir lands. Release of these lands from the purview of the Jagir Abolition Regulations in favour of Mirza Wala Hyder, vide proceedings dated 07.05.1981, would only amount to the Jagir Administrator holding that these lands are not jagir lands and nothing more. In releasing maqta Sanghiguda from the purview of the Jagir Abolition Regulations, the Jagir Administrator has neither conferred, nor could he have conferred, title over these lands on the petitioners. Nor can the proceedings dated 07.05.1981 be construed as a tacit admission by him that the petitioners are the owners of these lands. Neither the proceedings of the Jagir Administrator dated 07.05.1981 nor the fact that maqta Sanghiguda, along with Jagir lands, was under the custody of the Court of Wards prior to the Munthakhab being issued on 21.03.1952 would confer any right or title on the petitioners over these lands. The proceedings dated 07.05.1981 merely excludes maqta Sanghiguda from the purview of the Jagir Abolition Regulations. No other material is placed by the petitioners before this Court to establish their title over these lands. In any event, disputed questions of title are not, ordinarily, examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court would not exercise its special jurisdiction under the Constitution, in cases relating to immovable properties which are governed by the ordinary civil law, unless the circumstances are exceptional. (Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade (Smt) v. Anwarali Hasanali Makani[2]). Disputed question relating to title cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition. (New Satgram Engineering Works v. Union of India[3]; State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh[4]; Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.)[5]; Union of India v. Mohammed Mohiuddin[6]; Prince Shahamat Ali Khan v. Sultan-ul-Uloom Education Society[7]). Intricate questions relating to property rights or disputes regarding title and possession cannot be effectively resolved in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution only on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits without tendering witnesses for cross-examination. There is an effective, alternative, comprehensive remedy by way of private law review, for declaration, injunction and damages before the Civil Court. (Syed Kazim Bahadur vs. District Collector, Rangareddy District[8]). It is dangerous to grant declaration of title in respect of immovable properties in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for which remedies under the general law are available. (Lambadi Pedda Bhadru vs. Mohd. Ali Hussain[9]). In Sohan Lal v. Union of India[10], the Supreme Court held:- “……..We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a civil court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. There are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered……..” (emphasis supplied). Are the petitioners, or Late Sri Mir Mahboob Ali Khan, the owners of the lands in maqta Sanghiguda? or are these lands inam lands which stand vested in the Government? These and other related questions can be elaborately examined only on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary. Where there is a dispute as to whether a particular property vests or not, in the State or in any private individual, the dispute undoubtedly is a civil dispute and must, therefore, be resolved by a proceeding otherwise than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi vs. S.M. Hussain Rasheed[11]). The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to agitate their grievance either before the competent authority under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 or in a suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Since the writ petition is dismissed not on merits but on the ground that this court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not, ordinarily, adjudicate disputed questions of title, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the respondents contention that as the petitioner did not challenge Munthakhab No.5078 dated 21.03.1952, wherein maqta Sanghiguda is declared as an Arazi Inam, they had implicitly abandoned their rights and claims over these lands after 1952, that they had acquiesced thereto, that the present writ petition, claiming ownership of these lands more than four and half decades after the Munthakhab was issued, is belated and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, etc. These contentions are left open for adjudication, if need be, in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J April 2009. ASP/CVRK [1] 2002 (6) ALD 509 [2] (1992) 1 SCC 414 [3] (1980) 4 SCC 570 [4] 1993 (Suppl) 1 SCC 306 [5] (1992) 4 SCC 61 [6] 2000 (6) ALD 376 [7] 2003 (6) ALT 307 [8] 2002 (3) ALT 739 [9] 2003 (4) ALT 611 [10] 1957 SCR 738 [11] 2003 (5) ALT 143