Ordering status quo on the disputed property until the next hearing, Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court has directed the chief secretary to submit a detailed counter affidavit regarding the classification and ownership of land in Survey No. 66/2 located at Prashanthi Hills, Raidurg Nav Khalsa village.
The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Allagadda Chennamma, a resident of Nallakunta, Hyderabad, challenging decision of the Rangareddy district collector to issue a NOC to a claimant of Plot No. 211/B, measuring 200 sq yd in Survey No. 66/2.
The petitioner claims ownership of Plot No. 186, measuring 600 sq yd in the same area, acquired through a Sadabainama deed and subsequently regularised with the payment of necessary stamp duties and registration fees.
The petitioner asserted that the land in question was originally government land and disputes have since arisen involving the Naga Hills Cooperative Society, which claims to have purchased the property.
The petitioner highlighted earlier legal proceedings where the cooperative society had filed suits (OS Nos. 97 and 98 of 2004) that were dismissed by the V Additional District Judge Court in 2005. However, the High Court allowed appeals in 2008, favouring the cooperative society. Subsequent SLPs filed with the Supreme Court were dismissed.
Chennamma contended that the collector, acting on complaints by the cooperative society or subsequent purchasers, conducted a survey and issued a NOC to a plot owner for municipal permissions. The petitioner argued that the procedure was legally flawed, as the cooperative society, holding a court decree, should have sought execution through an executing court rather than through administrative measures.
The petitioner claimed the government’s actions to identify and localise the lands based on the collector’s report were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.
Justice Bhaskar Reddy has sought a comprehensive response from the state government regarding the nature of the lands, the NOCs issued, and the government’s claim over the disputed property. Meanwhile, all parties involved have been ordered to maintain the existing status quo.