HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition claiming ownership of 31 acres of prime land in various survey numbers at Shamshabad of Rangareddy district by ruling that the petitioner failed to approach the court with “clean hands”. In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice NV Shravan Kumar said that petitioner Mohammad Yahiya Qureshi, a resident of Falaknuma in Hyderabad, was not entitled to any relief.
Qureshi had moved the high court alleging that the respondents, particularly the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), were interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Qureshi claimed to be the son of the late Mohammed Farooq Qureshi, who was issued a sale certificate on January 27, 1968. The petitioner asserted that his father owned and was in possession of the land on the strength of the sale certificate. The legal dispute arose when the state government acquired over 216 acres, including the 31 acres claimed by Qureshi, to establish a truck terminal-cum-wholesale market.
Qureshi said that no notice was issued to his father regarding the acquisition of the land and an award was passed on January 12, 1990, by the land acquisition officer. Senior counsel V Venkataramana, representing the petitioner, contended that the relief sought in the writ petition is based on the sale certificate issued in 1968 and pointed out that the petitioner’s father’s name was consistently recorded as the owner and possessor of the land in various documents, including sethwar and pahanis from 1959 up to 2007.
On the other hand, counsel for the HMDA informed the court that the petitioner submitted forged receipts to claim the land. These alleged receipts falsely indicated the payment of house tax since 2007, mentioning the existence of Telangana state in the same year, though the state was formed in 2014. After considering the arguments, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.“Those seeking extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction must approach the court with “clean hands”. The petitioner failed to meet this standard,” the judgement said.