Telangana HC hears appeal in 383-acre Maheswaram land dispute
The Telangana High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar heard a State appeal over 383 acres of land in Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy district. The State argued the land is forest property classified as “Poramboke Kancha” and “Mahasura Jungle”.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday heard a State appeal concerning a dispute over approximately 383 acres of land situated in Maheswaram village of Ranga Reddy district, where competing claims of private ownership and government title have come into sharp focus.
The Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, contended that the land in question is forest land and is being sought to be claimed by private parties without any lawful title, allegedly on the strength of internal notings in government records. It was argued that historical revenue documents, including records dating back to 1929 and the Sethwar, classify the land as “Poramboke Kancha” and “Mahasura Jungle”, indicating its status as government and forest land.
The State further asserted that certain revenue entries relied upon by the writ petitioners are fabricated and do not confer any legal title. Opposing the appeal, counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners are successors of joint Muslim Munthakab holders and have valid title and patta over the land. It was argued that the Forest Department has been in long-standing possession of the land for over five decades with an intention to acquire it, but failed to complete acquisition proceedings by issuing a fresh notification.
The rejection of the petitioners’ claim for compensation on the ground that the land constituted ceiling surplus was challenged as arbitrary and inconsistent with earlier stands taken by the authorities. Reliance was also placed on revenue records reflecting the petitioners’ title.
The State, however, maintained that even assuming the petitioners had any claim, the land would fall within surplus holdings under land ceiling laws and, being under the control of the Forest Department, would vest with the government without any obligation to pay compensation.
The appeal arises from an order of a single judge who held that the State had not adequately justified its classification of the land as Poramboke, particularly in light of contrary revenue entries.
The single judge observed that revenue records carry presumptive value regarding title and found that the State failed to produce sufficient material, apart from the Sethwar, to rebut such entries. It was also noted that a 1999 acquisition notification having lapsed, the State could not rely on it to sustain its claim over the land.
During the hearing of the appeal, the Advocate General reiterated that revenue records, by themselves, do not confer title in law and cannot override the true nature of the land as reflected in earlier foundational records.
The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, did not conclude the proceedings and posted the matter to April 7 for further arguments, directing the successful writ petitioners to justify the findings of the single judge.
