SC Upholds Telangana's Ownership Over 550 Acres in Miyapur

Hyderabad: In a major relief to the state government, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its ownership of 550.39 acres of government land in Survey No.s 100 and 101 of Miyapur.

The apex court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the several private co-operative societies and individuals, who claimed the land with the fabricated documents and entry in revenue records with the collusion of revenue authorities and challenged the then-Andhra Pradesh High Court’s common judgment dated April 16, 2003, which had declared the land belonged to the government.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the decision of the High Court and affirmed the findings that the disputed land in Survey No.s 100 and 101 were government poramboke land and that the private claimants were land-grabbers under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Though a large extent of land was encroached and structures, including multi-storey residential complexes, came up, the government can put to use considerable extent of vacant land still available. The value of this land runs into thousands of crores of rupees.

With the Supreme Court order the encroachers would have to regularise their structures.

The apex court made it clear that fraudulent revenue entries, invalid historical claims and subsequent transactions could not confer ownership over land that had vested in the state. The apex court exposed how private claimants sought to establish ownership over government land by relying on disputed revenue records, alleged inheritance rights and conveyance documents, while subsequent registration and official permissions could not cure the defects in their claims.

The apex court considered the arguments submitted by senior counsels C.S. Vaidyanathan, S. Niranjan Reddy, advocate on record Devina Sehgal, Karanam Sravan Kumar, who appeared on behalf of the state.

The dispute involved several individuals, housing societies and private entities claiming rights through different sources, including the alleged heirs of former jagirdar Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan. Companies associated with Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad, known otherwise as ‘Goldstone Prasad’ with other entities figured in the competing claims over the extensive land parcels.

The land records went back to the 1912 survey, which classified 277.5 acres in Survey No. 100 and 273.34 acres in Survey No. 101 as sarkari poramboke, or government land. The classification was reflected in the classer register and sethwar.

The Reilly Commission’s 1927 report on paigah estates recommended the Miyapur village to be restored in favour of one Rafi-un-nisa Begum, legal heir of Rashid-ud-Din Khan.

According to the Nizam’s subsequent Firman Isfandar 1338 Fasli, any such grant did not confer absolute private ownership to any of the jagirdar or their heirs. The private claimants traced their claims through Rafi-un-nisa Begum and claimed that she sold that property which they alleged was her private estate.

Apart from that, a crucial finding concerned revenue records in which Raheemunissa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, was shown as a pattedar, which was different to Rafi-un-nisa Begum. The Supreme Court noted that her name had been inserted in the pattedar column of the pahanies for 1950–51, 1951–52 and 1952–53, even though other columns continued to describe the land as poramboke and government property.

The entries had appeared after the land had vested in the state, after abolition of the Jagirs on August 15, 1949. The bench found no order authorising the transfer or mutation and noted that the corresponding entries were absent from the faisal patti and pucca book. The court upheld the findings that the entries were bogus, unauthorised and the result of fraud involving collusion with revenue officials.

Another group of appellants claimed through Nawab Mohammad Khaisaruddin Khan, son of Rafi-un-nisa Begum, wife of Nawab Moin-ud-Dowla Bahadur, on the basis of an alleged oral gift. But, the bench traced that Khan had applied for the grant of muntakhab (payment) for the paigah or jagir villages, including Miyapur, before the Nazim Atiyat for commutation award.

Without any reference to the aforesaid proceedings, the then tahsildar granted permission under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, to Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, to alienate 140 acres of land in Survey No. 100 of Miyapur on strength of the entry of her name in the pahanies of 1950-53.

The dispute brought into focus the subsequent transactions and official actions relied upon by the private claimants to support their ownership claims. The Supreme Court held that the tahsildar’s permission to alienate the land could not be treated as valid because it failed to account for the abolition of jagirs and the concluded Atiyat proceedings. The permission was issued without jurisdiction and without hearing the relevant parties.

The broader controversy surrounding the Miyapur land claims also involved allegations that fabricated documents and manipulated land records were used to facilitate transactions over government property, including through registrations and dealings intended to portray disputed parcels as privately owned. Investigative accounts have linked entities associated with Goldstone Prasad and the private entities associated with him, claims based on alleged powers of attorney from the former jagirdar’s heirs.

The court rejected the plea of adverse possession, finding that it had not been established. An inspection conducted on October 19, 1995, had recorded that the property was wasteland covered with boulders, with no visible agricultural operations or possession by the claimant.

Trinity Infra, Suvishal Power Appeals Over Miyapur Land Dismissed

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court’s dismissal of appeals over the ownership of hundreds of acres of disputed land in Miyapur has brought renewed focus on the alleged attempt by Trinity Infraventures and companies associated with Ponnapula Venkata Sanjeev Prasad, a.k.a. Goldstone Prasad, to establish claims over government property through disputed historical title documents and registered instruments.

The controversy over land in Survey No.s 100 and 101 of Miyapur was at the heart of the land scam investigation in the year 2017. The criminal case alleged that Trinity Infraventures, its associates and Suvishal Power Generation Ltd relied on general powers of attorney (GPAs) and purported ‘sanad’ deeds to transfer government land despite restrictions on its registration and earlier judicial findings in favour of the state.

According to Crime No. 366 of 2017 at Kukatpally police station registered on May 25, 2017, Trinity Infraventures executed four documents in favour of Suvishal Power Generation Ltd, covering government lands in four Miyapur survey numbers, in which two documents were related to Survey No.s 100 and 101. The complaint alleged the involvement of the then sub-registrar of the registration department, who was named in the first information report (FIR) and arrested.

The FIR was registered against Trinity Infrastructures Limited represented by its authorised signatory P.S. Parthasaradhi and Suvishal Power Generators Limited represented by its authorised signatory P.V.S. Sharma, who was also general manager in Goldstone Infra Tech.

The FIR also named Goldstone Prasad and his relatives P. Indrani Prasad, Mahita Prasad Caddel and Sunita Prasad, directors of the company, as accused.

The transactions were not isolated conveyances. The prosecution alleged that they formed part of a wider arrangement involving GPAs, purported Sanad deeds and transfers between companies linked to Trinity Infraventures and Suvishal Power. The Supreme Court, while considering Trinity’s request to stay the criminal proceedings in April 2018, recorded the prosecution’s allegation that the GPA and six sanad deeds were intended to transfer purported rights over approximately 802.4 acres of alleged government land in Survey No.s 20, 28, 100 and 101. In the civil appeal case, the Supreme Court declared that the land Survey No.s 100 and 101 as state-owned.