Hyderabad: The Telangana high court, allowing an appeal by the state govt, set aside a 1999 trial court order directing the govt to hand over possession of two land parcels measuring 1.3 acres and 1.2 acres on the campus of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in Erragadda to private claimants. The high court observed that the trial court relied excessively on admissions made by govt officials without properly examining evidence of ownership.In his order, Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao noted that when private parties stake claim to govt land, courts must insist on credible proof of title and cannot decide issue solely on admissions made by officials.The court observed that govt officers entrusted with safeguarding public property must exercise greater diligence, warning that negligence or collusion by officials cannot be allowed to result in loss of public land.The land in question is located at Bahaloolkhanguda in Erragadda. The original plaintiff claimed ownership of the land, stating it was leased to the govt for several decades and that the lease was renewed until 1984.“After the govt allegedly stopped paying rent and failed to renew the lease, the agreement was terminated and we sought eviction, arrears of rent and damages, since the land was required for the benefit of the petitioner’s unemployed son,” the counsel for one of the petitioners informed the high court.The govt, however, argued that rent payments were stopped only because ownership of the land required verification. “Furthermore, the land was essential for the [functioning of] IMH. Acquisition proceedings had earlier been initiated, and official revenue and survey records classified the property as govt land,” argued the govt counsel.The counsel further argued that the trial court ignored these records and relied only on admissions made by departmental officials who failed to properly verify the facts.Meanwhile, the claimants contended that the govt had itself admitted to the landlord-tenant relationship by paying rent for several years and through official correspondence. They argued that once tenancy was admitted, the govt was barred from disputing the landlord’s title.Rejecting this contention, the high court held that admissions regarding tenancy alone cannot establish ownership where govt property is involved. “The plaintiff primarily relied on a photocopy of an unregistered lease deed, whose authenticity and legal validity were not established. Moreover, the document was allegedly executed by an officer who lacked authority to bind the govt,” the court held.Holding that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the govt records and other evidence, the high court termed its findings legally unsustainable, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed in 1999, thereby affirming ownership of the land to the govt.
