N.M Azizuddin Khan vs State Of Telangana

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30. 03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.7668 of 2021 filed by

the appellant/writ petitioner seeking the following relief:

...to issue a Writ, Order, direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No

898/1979 Dated 14/05/1979 and its Rectification Deed Document bearing No 6489/1982 Dated 14/08/1982 quietly executed by the

Respondent No.3 in favour of the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 before the Respondent No.2 as NULL AND VOID, violation of existing Law of this

State prescribed under Section No.6 of the Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act 1952, which specifically prohibited for alienation or transferred

or encumbrance of Atiyat grant in any a manner or to any extent or portion thereof, violation of Section No.15(3) of Telangana Atiyat

Enquiries Rules, 1952, hits by final Judgment in rem that is Muntakhab No.3 Dated 14/02/1983 (title document) in respect of

Petitioner’s land Acres 3.19 guntas situated in Survey No.204 are part/parcel lands of Shamshabad village, covered by Item No.1

mentioned along with Serial No.294 of the Gazette Notification listed in Appendix G of said Muntakhab and violation of Section No.13(1) of

Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 violation of Section 22A 1 a of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and wholly arbitrary and unjust and

violative of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders forthwith and pass such other order or orders

as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.â€​

The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, the claim of the petitioner itself is stale, as he has not taken

any legal recourse in respect of his grievance for a period spreading over four decades and nor is there any averment in the writ petition to the effect

that the petitioner took any steps to protect the subject property over this duration. In fact, the writ petitioner seeks setting aside of a sale transaction

conducted about 40 years ago, in the year 1979. Secondly, it has been observed that assuming that the writ petitioner overcomes the hurdle of

explaining the inordinate delay, it is apparent from the petition that he has raised disputed questions of fact and under the garb of filing the writ petition,

seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale documents registered in respect of the subject premises on 14.05.1979 are invalid, on the plea that the

vendor never possessed the title for passing on the same to the vendee. Noting that all the said averments would require the court to examine the

claim of ownership, the manner in which the sale transaction had taken place in the year 1979 and would require evidence to be brought on record, the

court has declined to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

At the outset, we have requested learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner to point out the documents placed on record showing any

correspondence made by his client with the respondent authorities in respect of the subject registered sale deed from the year 1979, till the date of

filing of the writ petition i.e., 28.04.2021. Learned counsel concedes that there has been no correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the

respondents over the past 40 years in respect of the title of the subject land. He however asserts that the appellant was unaware of the very existence

of the subject sale deed till March, 2021 when he obtained a certified copy of the said document. All kinds of untenable excuses are sought to be

offered to explain the inaction on the part of the appellant in seeking appropriate and timely legal recourse and none of the explanations are based on

any legal submission.

Quite clearly, the appellant/writ petitioner is raising disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect

of relief, which is patently stale, apparently to overcome the bar of limitation that would stare him in his face if he would have instituted a civil suit.

Even otherwise, all the points sought to be urged in the writ petition are based on facts, which are mostly in the realm of disputed questions of fact

relating to cancellation of a document registered by the official respondents as long back in the year 1979.

The impugned order does not warrant any interference. In fact, this court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is a gross abuse of

the process of law.

The present appeal is dismissed in limine along with the pending applications, if any, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be

deposited by the appellant/writ petitioner with the Telangana Bar Association within two weeks, for spending the same on the welfare of COVID

affected Lawyers.