← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/16390/2019dismissed no costs

Syed Abbas v. The State Of Telangana

2019-08-05P Naveen Rao3 pages

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16390 OF 2019 Date: 05.08.2019 Between:

Syed Abbas S/o.Syed Omer, Aged about 34 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.5-79, Errakunta, Kothapeta, Rangareddy District-05, Presently, residing at H.No.19-3-294/264/N/95, Roshan Colony, Vattepally, Hyderabad-53, T.S.

.....Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16390 OF 2019 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 2.

Petitioner claims that he is the owner and in possession of property bearing Municipal House No.18-13-8/J/A/2/1, Plot No.2, Sy.No.180 and 181 admeasuring 213 Square yards in Bandlaguda Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District. Petitioner claims that this property was acquired by him by virtue of registered Gift Deed executed by his wife on 31.03.2019.

3.

From the material on record it appears that the ownership claim of wife of petitioner is based on an agreement of sale dated 16.07.1998. In pursuant to the gift settlement deed, petitioner claims to have applied for digging of borewell, electricity connection, payment of property tax and also made application to grant building permission. Petitioner now alleges that the respondent-Tahsildar, is interfering with his possession and enjoyment.

4.

As briefly noted above, except placing reliance on agreement of sale in favour of Smt Mumtaz Begum-wife of petitioner and gift settlement deed executed by the said person in favour of petitioner, no other material is placed on record to show semblance of passing on title effectively in the first instance to his wife and later to him. No material is placed on record to show why the Tahsildar is interfering with his possession.

5.

Having regard to the facts noted above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 5th August, 2019 Rds