Telangana High Court reserves orders for writ appeal on prohibition of land 

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyyan and Justice S Nanda on Tuesday reserved orders for a writ appeal on prohibition of land in Sultanpalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The panel was dealing with an appeal filed by the state government against an order of a single judge.

Earlier, V. Tulsiram and others filed a writ petition questioning notice issued by the RDO seeking to alter the records to describing 1002.35 guntas as Jagir Lands. While disposing the same, a single judge had concluded that the notice was without jurisdiction, was hopelessly time barred and left it to the government to approach the civil court.

Advocate General in the appeal reiterated that the said land was Jagir land and that the government cannot be forced to approach the civil court. Senior Counsel V Venkat Ramana appearing for the private parties contended that state was claiming the land and burden of proof lies with the government and they have to approach civil court. Senior Counsel L Ravichander appearing for the other respondents contended that already a civil suit was filed before the competent civil court and the government was set ex parte. The panel observed that the arguments were concluded earlier this month. It also observed that counsels for appellant and respondents submitted their written submissions today. The panel accordingly reserved the matter for orders.

OU Lands

The same panel adjourned a PIL questioning the inaction of the government in not protecting the land in Osmania University during the Covid 19 lockdown period. The panel was dealing with a letter addressed to it by DR P Ramana Rao as a PIL. In his letter, Dr Ramana Rao contended that taking advantage of the lockdown, land grabbers encroached 8000 Sq.Yds of land in the Osmania University. He pointed out that Tulasi Cooperative Housing Society was the owner of 4800 sq.yds of rectangular plots. The said society had sold the land in the years 1979 and 1980 leaving one plot earmarked for park. The petitioner contended that the owner had taken undue advantage of a surveyor report and executed 9 sale deeds in the year 2001. The state Advocate General informed the court that in respect of the purported sale deeds executed by the society, a crime was already registered, and statements were recorded before the magistrate concerned. The panel adjourned the matter to August 08.