Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court recently dealt with appeals filed by the government in 2002 and 2003. These appeals sought to set aside a decree issued by the Civil Court of Rangareddy district, which had declared private parties as owners of three acres each.
The private parties asserted ownership and possession over the land, relying on pattas allegedly granted in 1961 under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules, 1950. They sought a declaration of title, an injunction against interference, and the mutation of their names in the revenue records. The trial court accepted their case and ruled in their favor in April 2002.
On appeal, the state challenged the validity of the pattas, arguing that they were fabricated, temporary in nature, and issued contrary to revised assignment rules notified in GO Ms. No. 1406 of 1958, which superseded the earlier Laoni Rules. The government also highlighted GO Ms. No. 1122 of 1961, which imposed a ban on assignments within a 10-mile radius of Hyderabad, including the area of Kondapur.
Furthermore, the state contended that portions of the land had already been allotted to various institutions, complicating the claim of the private parties.
The High Court found several anomalies in the pattas presented by the private parties. These included discrepancies in dates and the use of terms that were absent from the prescribed format. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish valid title to the land, emphasizing that in suits for declaration, the burden of proof lies squarely on the claimants.
Additionally, the court rejected the private parties’ plea of adverse possession, holding that such a claim cannot coexist with their assertion of pattas as evidence of ownership. Justice Bheemapaka criticized the private parties for their contradictory stance—initially claiming the land was allotted under the Loani Rules and later asserting settled possession for 40 years.
The judge made it clear that the civil court, acting as a fact-finding body, could not presume possession in the absence of supporting documents. Concluding that the trial court had erred in presuming both title and possession, the High Court set aside the earlier decree and dismissed the suits.
The litigation was termed by the court as an attempt to encroach upon valuable government land, underscoring the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and documentation in land disputes.
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/southern-states/telangana/telangana-hc-dismisses-private-parties-claim-over-36-acres-in-kondapur-1907262