1 SA.No.103.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006 Syed Nasiruddin S/o Sayed Afzaloddin and others. ... Appellants V E R S U S Liyakathi W/o Sayyad Jamiurddin and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 670 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 1006 Syed Nasiruddin S/o Sayed Afzaloddin and others. ... Applicants V E R S U S Liyakathi W/o Sayyad Jamiurddin and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1005 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 1006 Syed Nasiruddin S/o Sayed Afzaloddin and others. ... Applicants V E R S U S Liyakathi W/o Sayyad Jamiurddin and others ... Respondents ... Mr.J.H.Deshmukh,Advocate for Appellants/Applicants Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar),Advocate for respondents ... 2 SA.No.103.06 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] The Second Appeal is challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Vth Adhoc District Judge Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1998. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession of land Survey No.332 admeasuring 26 Guntha situated at village Neknoor, Tq. and District Beed. 2] It was their case that, this land was earlier an “Inam land” given to their family alongwith other lands. It is their case that, after The Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grant Act, 1954 came into force, they should have been granted occupancy right in respect of this land, but the same were granted in favour of one Waliuddin, who happened to be the brother of appellants and the husband of the appellants No.2 and 3. It is their case further that, since they did not obtain 'Succession Certificate' from the Competent Authority under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grant Act,1954, the Government took suit land in its supervision and in public auction allowed Waliuddin to cultivate the same on 'Ek Sal Lawani basis'. 3] Having aggrieved by the order of declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the suit land in 3 SA.No.103.06 favour of Waliuddin, they took objection and their objection was allowed. Despite of this, they could not get possession, so they brought this suit for possession. The appellants took up stand that the land was never an “Inam” Land and was not given to the members of the respondent's family. They specifically asserted that the land was their private property. They also contended that the decision to grant occupancy rights in respect of the suit land to Waliuddin was proper. They also asserted further that the order on the objections raised by the respondents, passed by the Tahsildar in (File No.24 of 1962) was non-est for want of jurisdiction. 4] The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court having regard to the order passed by the Tahsildar in (File No.24 of 1962), allowing the objections raised by the respondents in respect of the grant of occupancy rights to Waliuddin held that the order decided the fate of the parties and decreed the suit. The question now is whether the order passed by the Tahsildar in (File No.24 of 1962) can be questioned in this litigation. The answer is in negative. 5] The appellants are quite aware of this order. They were heard before this order was passed. Despite of this order going against them, it appears, no steps were taken by them to challenge 4 SA.No.103.06 this order. In view of this, they can not be heard saying that the order was non-est for want of jurisdiction. If at all they were aggrieved by this order they should have filed an appeal against this order before the Competent Court established under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grant Act,1954. 6] Having not done so, the order in file No. 24 of 1962 has attained finality. Thus the appellants can not show any substantial question arising in this appeal. The appeal should therefore fail. It must be observed that the appellants are still at liberty to go before the Competent Authority established under Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grant Act,1954 for getting their grievance redressed, if law permits. The appeal stands dismissed. The Interim relief stands vacated. 7] The application for keeping the order passed in this appeal in abeyance, is rejected. 8] The civil Application No. 670 of 2006 and Civil Application No. 1005 of 2008 in Second Appeal No.103 of 2006 stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok