Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has concluded the long-standing Civil Suit-7 of 1958, which centred on properties from the Nizam era, after 66 years of legal disputes.
The court determined that the case was based on non-existent plots, meaning there was no land available for adjudication or distribution among the alleged legal heirs of the Nizam’s officials.
This judgment was delivered on January 9 by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N V Shravan Kumar.
Suit originated in 1953
The suit originated in 1953 when Sultana Jahan Begum, the daughter of Nawab Moinuddula Bahadur, sought a partition of properties bestowed upon her father by the Nizam as a ‘Jagir’.
She presented a schedule of properties that included both extensive land and movable assets like jewellery and cash.
In 1958, the case was transferred to the high court and renamed CS-7 of 1958. While there was little contention regarding the first 229 items in her claim, items numbered 230 to 254 involved 25 villages, leading to numerous claimants asserting their rights based on relationships with Nizam’s officials.
Throughout the proceedings, Sultana Jahan Begum and some legal heirs reached a compromise to divide the assets among themselves and obtained a preliminary decree from the high court on April 6, 1959, affirming their vested rights over what was deemed Paigah property.
However, Imran Khan, representing the state, argued that all land had been vested with the revenue department due to the Jagir Abolition Act.
He pointed out that while claimants referenced a compromise decree, the state was not involved in that agreement.
Khan also highlighted clause 4(g) of the preliminary decree, indicating that if properties were restored or released in favour of Asman Jahi Paigah, then income or proceeds from those properties would be distributed among 20 legal heirs.
However, he noted that there was no evidence showing that properties listed from serial numbers 230 to 254 had been restored or released to the Paigah.
Without a formal release order, he contended that the compromise decree could not serve as a basis for further adjudication.
During the case’s pendency, various third parties and legal heirs filed claims over the land associated with the 25 makhtas, citing a release order from 1977 issued by the survey commissioner.
The court questioned why these claims were only brought forth in 2023 if the release order had been established years earlier and expressed scepticism regarding its validity.
Ultimately, the bench rejected these claims based on reports from two court-appointed receivers who confirmed that no land existed in those makhtas for adjudication.
Despite dismissing these claims, the court directed its registry to prepare a formal decree regarding the first 229 items in favour of the 20 legal heirs involved in the case.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by P N Sree Harsha | 
