HC order on Paigah stays

SC held that final decree is yet to be passed in title suit HAMEEDUNNISA Begum and Nawab Mohd Moizuddin Khan, legal heirs of the Paigah family, and two others moved three separate revision petitions before the joint collector against the order of the tah

The Supreme Court has declined to intervene into the order of the Hyderabad High Court which had issued recently had held that the final decree was not passed in the suit pending since 1958 with regard to Paigah properties.

A division bench of the High Court on August 16, 2018 had dismissed the three petitions by M/s. Trinity Infraventures Limited, formerly known as M/s. Goldstone Exports Ltd, belonging to Gold Stone Prasad, challenging the revision orders passed by the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district against the claim of the petitioners over the controversial Paigah lands at Miyapur.

The Tahasildar of Balanagar Mandal of the district on August 19, 2011 passed the orders effecting mutation of about 113 acres situated in Survey No 1 to 57 of Hasmathpet village in favour of Ms. Indrani Prasad, Mr S Murali Krishna, Dr. PS Prasad alias Gold Stone Prasad, Cyrus Investments Ltd, Gold Stone Exports Ltd, Gold Stone Infratech Ltd. Mr. LP Sashi Kumar and Mr. Rama Murthy.

Ms Hameedunnisa Begum and Nawab Mohd Moizuddin Khan, legal heirs of the Paigah family, and two others moved three separate revision petitions before the joint collector against the order of the tahasildar and the joint collector allowed all the three revision petitions and remanded the matter back to the tahsildar for a de nova enquiry.

Aggrieved by the orders of the joint collector, M/s. Trinity Infraventures Ltd had moved the High Court.

The High Court while dismissing the petitions significantly focused on the mischief done by an officer of its Registry with regard to the alleged final decree in the suit pertaining to the Paigah properties.

The apex court while dealing with an appeal by M\s Trinity Infraventures Ltd pointed out that “We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, as final decree is required to be passed.”

A two-member bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran said that, “As agreed to, we make it clear that the observations made in the impugned order by the High Court shall not be used in any proceedings and shall not influence the High Court to pass the final decree in accordance with law.”

Maintaining that the observations made are hereby diluted, the bench disposed off the appeals.