Telangana HC dismisses state govt appeal over 185 acres in Shamshabad

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ appeal filed by the government on 185 acres of land in Sultapur of Shamshabad mandal, on the ground that action after 54 years cannot be considered reasonable.

The case pertains to the government claiming ownership on the grounds it was ‘jagir (assigned)’ land, as notified by the RDO in 1993.

The memo was challenged successfully in an earlier petition and the High Court in 2009 had left it open to the state to adjudicate title in a civil court. The MRO approached the commissioner and director of settlement and jagir administrator for a declaration of the same as jagir land, but failed.

The petitioner in the case, Tulsiram, initially approached the court after the collector issued notice, and gained a prohibition restraining the joint collector from conducting an inquiry.

On Tuesday, the bench upheld the verdict of the single judge that it was not for the jagir authorities to determine the title. It said that the bar to challenge a showcause notice was not without exception.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, observed that the single judge and found that the that the power to initiate a proceeding has to be exercised within a reasonable time. “Therefore, the learned single judge found that the initiation of proceedings by issuing a memo dated 21.06.1993 is incompetent, without jurisdiction and arbitrary. The authorities had acted after more than half a century (sic).”

The bench said that the state government cannot proceed on the assumption that the land in question is jagir land. The contention of the Advocate General that the landowners did not avail of the appropriate remedy does not deserve acceptance, it said.

The court said the dismissal of the MRO’s petition before the commissioner and director of settlement and jagir administrator on 31.03.2005 was binding on the appellant.  

 “The initiation of action after 54 years, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be reasonable. On this ground also, the notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law,” the bench said.