HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court witnessed intense arguments on Friday as Advocate General BS Prasad presented a compelling case on behalf of the state government and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) during the hearing of two separate petitions asserting ownership over 50 acres of land at Shamshabad.
The court was hearing arguments on two petitions 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 matter, now coupled with a contempt case, revolves around a plot allegedly encroached upon by the petitioners through the use of false and fabricated court orders.
During the proceedings before the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice NV Shravan Kumar, the AG asserted that the petitioners had relied on a fictitious court order to secure an interim directive to encroach the contested land. The AG insisted that such actions amounted to fraud in the court.
Earlier, the petitioners had contested any interference by the 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 the Chief Justice bench which oversees the CS-7 series of cases. What raised eyebrows is that the two petitioners presented two purported high court orders from 1997, which supposedly prohibited HMDA from interfering in their properties.
On Friday, the AG underscored the seriousness of the matter by drawing parallels with a Supreme Court order in a similar case, where the Registry was directed to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for fabricating documents. He urged the court to instruct the Registry to file a criminal complaint regarding the fabrication and submission of the bogus court orders and pressing of charges under relevant Sections of the IPC for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and placing false evidence before the court.
The AG also contended that filing of fabricated court orders constituted criminal contempt and argued that imprisonment should be considered. After BS Prasad concluded his arguments, the bench adjourned the matter to November 14.