HYDERABAD: What initially began as a routine hearing regarding two separate petitions asserting ownership over 50 acres of land at Shamshabad has exposed a potential fraud involving prime real estate perpetrated within the court system. Two petitions were filed by Mohammed Yahiya Qureshi of Falaknuma and Mohammed Moinuddin of Vattepally in Hyderabad’s Old City, claiming that their ancestors had purchased land parcels from Paigah owners.
The petitioners contested any interference by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and the police. Given that the land parcels trace their origins back to the Nizam properties dispute, known as the CS-7 batch of cases, the petitions were consolidated with that batch and brought before a bench presided over by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, who oversees the CS-7 series of cases. What raises eyebrows is that the two petitioners presented two purported high court orders from 1997, which supposedly prohibited HMDA from interfering in their properties.
The purported court orders cited two distinct writ petitions filed in 1997. During the hearing on September 15, 2023, Advocate General BS Prasad voiced suspicion that the two petitioners might be engaging in fraudulent practices within the court.
He submitted evidence of the non-existence of such orders. Additionally, documents like panchayat receipts from Shamshabad, allegedly issued in 2007, were deemed counterfeit. The AG pointed out that the receipts indicated Samshabad panchayat in Telangana, though the State of Telangana was not established until after 2014. Convinced by the AG’s argument, Chief Justice Aradhe instructed the judicial registrar to conduct an inquiry into the two writ petitions filed in 1997 and the purported orders associated with them. When the bench resumed the proceedings, the judicial registrar’s report was presented in a sealed cover. Upon review, the report clearly stated that the two writ petitions and the alleged orders within them were entirely fabricated.
Acting on this, the CJ directed the registry to provide copies of the registrar’s report to the petitioners and the State by October 3. The case is slated to be reevaluated on October 13. Both the State and the petitioners have been instructed to submit their responses based on the registrar’s findings.