HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has held that disputed land within the Government Mental Care Hospital premises at Erragadda belongs to the state, rejecting private ownership claims and reiterating that no person can acquire a better title than that held by the vendor.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao allowed two second appeals filed by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh and set aside judgments recognising private ownership over portions of the land.
The court held that revenue entries are not conclusive proof of ownership and rejected reliance on an unregistered photocopy of a lease deed. It said Setwar records, town survey records and Gazette notifications conclusively established the government’s title. The court also observed that errors, negligence or even collusion by revenue officials cannot convert public property into private land.
One appeal, pending for more than 23 years, challenged the first appellate court’s declaration of title in favour of Y Chandrasekhar Rao and 29 others over 1 acre and 20 guntas in Survey No. 127 (old Survey No. 58), Erragadda. The high court restored the trial court’s decree in favour of the government.
In the connected appeal, pending since 2000, the court also set aside the decree dated June 30, 1999, passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which had declared title in favour of Rafatunnissa Begum (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs) and five others over 1 acre and 31 guntas.
The respondents relied on sale deeds executed by their vendors and argued that government departments had agreed to pay rent for the property, thereby acknowledging their ownership. The state contended that the land formed part of Bahlol Khan Guda Jagir village and vested in the government following the abolition of the Jagir system after 1948, making subsequent private transfers legally invalid.
Accepting the state’s contention, the court held that a sale deed does not by itself confer title unless the vendor possessed a valid legal interest. It reiterated that a purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that held by the seller.
Accordingly, the court allowed both second appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and restored the trial court decrees recognising the state’s ownership.
