Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside a 1999 trial court order directing the state government to hand over two parcels of land on the campus of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) at Erragadda to private claimants, holding that ownership of government land cannot be determined solely on admissions made by public officials.
Allowing an appeal filed by the state government, Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao ruled that the trial court had relied excessively on admissions made by government officials without adequately examining documentary evidence relating to ownership.
The disputed land comprises two parcels measuring 1.3 acres and 1.2 acres at Bahaloolkhanguda in Erragadda, where the Institute of Mental Health is located.
The private claimants had contended that the land belonged to them and had been leased to the government for several decades, with the lease being renewed until 1984. They argued that after the government stopped paying rent and failed to renew the lease, the agreement was terminated.
The claimants sought eviction of the government, recovery of rent arrears and damages, stating that the land was required for the benefit of the original petitioner’s unemployed son.
The state government, however, maintained that rent payments had been withheld because the ownership of the land required verification. It also argued that the property was essential for the functioning of the Institute of Mental Health and that acquisition proceedings had earlier been initiated. According to the government, revenue and survey records classified the land as government property.
The government further contended that the trial court ignored these official records and instead relied on admissions made by departmental officials who had failed to properly verify the facts.
The claimants argued that the government’s payment of rent over several years and official correspondence acknowledging a landlord-tenant relationship prevented it from disputing their ownership.
HC rejects claimants’ arguments
Rejecting this argument, the High Court held that an admission of tenancy by itself does not establish ownership where government land is involved. The court noted that the claimants had primarily relied on a photocopy of an unregistered lease deed, whose authenticity and legal validity had not been established. It also observed that the document was allegedly executed by an officer who lacked the authority to bind the government.
Justice Rao emphasised that when private parties stake claim to government land, courts must insist on credible evidence of title rather than rely solely on admissions made by officials. He also observed that government officers entrusted with protecting public property must exercise due diligence and that negligence or collusion by officials cannot be allowed to result in the loss of public land.
Holding that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the government records and other evidence, the High Court termed its findings legally unsustainable, allowed the state’s appeal, set aside the 1999 decree and affirmed the government’s ownership of the disputed land.
