Telangana HC upholds land grabbing ruling against businessman in Hyderabad

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has upheld a 2012 decision by the Special Tribunal for Land Grabbing, which declared a local businessman a land grabber for unlawfully occupying private property in Chilukanagar, near Uppal, Hyderabad.

A division bench comprising Justices T Vinod Kumar and P Sree Sudha recently dismissed a writ petition filed by the businessman challenging the tribunal’s ruling. The court affirmed that the petitioner lacked a valid title over the disputed 225 square yards, which included both a house and open space.

The businessman contended that he had purchased the land through a registered sale deed and constructed a house after obtaining the necessary permissions.

He argued that the tribunal had erred by disregarding both oral and documentary evidence presented in his favour and by misinterpreting critical documents.

However, the respondent, who had previously secured a favourable ruling from the tribunal, asserted that he was the rightful owner of the property, having acquired it through a registered sale deed from a vendor with a valid title.

He alleged that the businessman had illegally occupied the land, built a compound wall, and erected a temporary shed. Despite lodging complaints with revenue authorities in December 2008, the petitioner failed to vacate the premises.

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the businessman’s title deeds were executed after those of the respondent.

The court noted that the respondent’s registered sale deed, being prior in time and legally valid, constituted public notice and carried greater legal weight. As a result, any subsequent transfer of title in favour of the petitioner was deemed illegal and could not confer ownership.

Citing relevant Supreme Court rulings, the bench found that the petitioner failed to establish lawful possession or ownership of the property.

The court ruled in favour of the respondent, confirming him as the rightful owner and reaffirming the petitioner’s status as a land grabber.