HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Bengaluru-based real estate firm Ittina Properties Pvt Ltd, holding that its claim over 15 acres in Khanamet village, Serilingampally mandal, was based on fabricated and bogus documents. The court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company and directed that the amount be deposited in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, Telangana.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, while rejecting the plea, directed the DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by an IPS officer of Additional Commissioner rank, to investigate the alleged fabrication of patta certificates, questionable revenue proceedings and the role of officials and private individuals in creating and using such documents. The SIT should submit a compliance report to the chief secretary/principal secretary, Revenue department, within four weeks.
The company claimed ownership of the land in Survey Nos. 41/12, 41/13 and 41/14 on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in 2006. It argued that the land had originally been assigned to ex-servicemen under a government policy and that its predecessors had been in possession since the early 1970s.
The state, however, disputed the claim, maintaining that the patta certificates relied upon by the company were fake. The Revenue department pointed out that the certificates were purportedly issued by the Rajendranagar tahsildar in 1972 and 1973, even though the Rajendranagar tahsildar office came into existence only in 1978. It also argued that related Record of Rights proceedings were issued by an unauthorised “Recording Officer” rather than the competent tahsildar.
Accepting these submissions, the court held that the petitioner had failed to establish the authenticity of the documents forming the basis of its claim. It ruled that the alleged pattas were fabricated and incapable of conferring title, observing that a purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that held by the vendor.
Citing Supreme Court judgments on fraud, including cases such as AV Papayya Sastry v. Government of AP, Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh and SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the judge observed that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that courts cannot allow public land to be appropriated through forged documents. The court also expressed concern over the failure of government officials to act despite apparent irregularities in the records.
