Hyderabad: The Telangana government on Wednesday, April 1, told the High Court that around 383 acre of forest land in Maheswaram village, Rangareddy district, was being sought to be siphoned off based on file notings without any valid legal title, as it argued its appeal against a single-judge’s order favouring the petitioners.
Appearing before a division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar, the state Advocate General argued that revenue records cited by the respondents, who claim to be joint Munthakab holders (Muslim) of the land inherited through succession, do not confer any title under settled principles of law.
The state contended that revenue records dating to 1929, including the Sethwar, classify the disputed land as “Poramboke Kancha” (government land) and “Mahasura Jungle” (forest land), and that revenue entries in favour of the petitioners are fraudulent and therefore cannot be treated as proof of ownership.
The state maintained that even if the land were considered to belong to the petitioners, it would constitute “surplus land” under land reform laws and, having remained in the possession of the forest department for over 50 years, should be treated as government land, making the petitioners ineligible for any compensation.
Counsel for the petitioners countered that the forest authorities’ rejection of their compensation claim was arbitrary and illegal and contrary to positions the authorities had taken in earlier writ petitions. The petitioners also submitted that revenue records support their title to the land.
The single-judge, whose order is under challenge, had held that the state failed to furnish reasons for classifying the land as Poramboke contrary to the entries in revenue records, and ruled that those entries constituted conclusive proof of title. The judge had also noted that a 1999 acquisition notification had since lapsed, and the land could therefore not be deemed government land on that basis.
The division bench heard the appeal without reaching a conclusion and posted the matter to April 7, directing the writ petitioners to justify the single-judge’s order.
