'Pattadar' cannot be 'Owner' of government land: Court

By Lokmat English Desk | Published: August 4, 2021 08:05 PM2021-08-04T20:05:01+5:302021-08-04T20:05:01+5:30

Aurangabad, Aug 4: The Joint Civil Judge (senior division) P R Shinde today gave a verdict stating that 'Pattadar' ...

'Pattadar' cannot be 'Owner' of government land: Court | 'Pattadar' cannot be 'Owner' of government land: Court

'Pattadar' cannot be 'Owner' of government land: Court

Next

Aurangabad, Aug 4:

The Joint Civil Judge (senior division) P R Shinde today gave a verdict stating that 'Pattadar' cannot be the 'Owner' of the government land. The decision was given by the court (on July 29) while disposing of the petition filed relating to the land adjoining the heritage Bibi ka Maqbara. The plaintiff had requested the court to prohibit action initiated against him.

Original petition

The plaintiff Jairaj Pande has stated that the land bearing city survey number (172, CTS No. 1635) is next to the Maqbara and since the Nizam period, they are ' Pattadars' and the land has been passed on to him by the ancestors. Hence he is the legal 'Pattedar' under the heirship. As a result, the court should issue an order prohibiting the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from interfering in my possessed property and from taking action. To support his claim of 'Pattadar' he produced few documents written in Modi script in the court.

ASI's argument

The ASI's pleader Adv Ramdas Bhosale brought into the notice of the court that all the heritage monuments of Marathwada and the land adjoining to them were handed over to ASI in 1951. Later on, the Hyderabad Tenancy Act (Kul Kayda) was scrapped in 1971 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Act) came into existence. Accordingly, the name of ASI is registered in the P R Card (of Land Record Section) and inquiry register and also has ownership rights. There is no mention of the plaintiff as 'Pattadar'. Hence it is an encroachment. For the past 15 years, the defendant is operating the parking bay on the controversial land and had also constructed a protection wall upon it, but the plaintiff has not raised any objections, argued Adv Bhosale. After the hearing, the court gave the above verdict.

Pattedar is not a land-owner

Adv Bhosale brought to the notice of the court that as per The Telangana Land Revenue Act, the ' Pattadar' is a person responsible to pay land revenue and whose name is entered in the Government (revenue) records. He is ' Pattedar' (possessor) not the owner.

Open in app