The Telangana High Court on Monday declined to reconsider decisions it had made regarding a parcel of 84 acres of land located in Survey Number 46 of Raidurg village, Serilingampally mandal in Ranga Reddy district. The decisions were made on April 27, 2022.
A division bench of the High Court rendered its decision in favour of private parties on April 27, 2022, rejecting the State government’s claim as it related to a group of review petitions filed by individuals, including Burgula Shivarama Krishna, Lingamaiah, and others, who claimed a portion of the land. The Telangana government stated in its recall petition that the division bench hearing the review petitions rendered erroneous orders by accepting phoney documents presented by private parties as real copies.
Senior counsel of Supreme Court C S Vaidyanathan, representing the State government, said that the land and real estate mafia had been attempting to get the land via a series of lawsuits. Furthermore, he claimed that the Supreme Court denied Lingamaiah’s suit over property title and that the apex court later dismissed his review case as well. The senior counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the papers relied on by the division bench in the review petition were provided illegally by Burugula Ramakrishna.
The counsel claimed that Ramakrishna had filed a forged and falsified sale deed dated 15 Aban 1259 Hijri (October 9, 1843) and its translated copy, which he claimed was issued by the State Archives Institute’s office of the director.
The State administration stated that the Sethwar and Sale Deeds of Private Estates papers were not available at the Telangana State Archive & Research Institute. As a result, issuing a sale deed dated 15 Aban 1259 Hijri (October 9, 1843) and the Sethwar of Raidurg Paigah Village Sy.No. 46 is no longer a problem.
“Furthermore, Telangana State Archives does not have any separate sale deed of private estates, namely Pahani and Sarf-i-Khass, and also does not have any sale deed of any private transactions (i.e. purchased or sold) of either movable and immovable properties of any given period,” the government stated in a court filing.After a long hearing on the recall petition, the division bench denied the government’s appeal.