Hyderabad: In a blow to a city-based builder Shanta Sriram Constructions, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that nearly Rs 200-crore worth of prime land in Banjara Hills, which the former has been in possession, was government land.
A bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.A.S. Bopanna set aside the Telangana High Court order which declared that the land belonged to private individuals.
Shantha Sriram had entered into a development agreement with these private individuals to develop 2.10 acres of land, located adjacent to Bhagyanagar Studio in Banjara Hills.
Deccan Chronicle had carried a series of articles in these columns to expose Shanta Sriram’s attempts to take up civil work in a hurry even when the case was pending in the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Hyderabad District revenue officials, especially Shaikpet tahasildar Srinivas Reddy, put in a lot of effort and personally monitored the case in the Supreme Court and briefed the counsel with documentary evidence.
The apex court upheld the earlier City Civil Court orders issued in 1998 in favour of the state government.
While the legal heirs of Badam Rangaswamy were claiming the ownership of two acres, situated near Bhagyanagar Studios on Road No 14, Banjara Hills, the revenue department contended that it is a government land as a nala also passed through the land.
“The judgment dated 01-04-2021 passed by the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad in CCCA No.22 of 1999 is set aside. The judgment dated 10-11-1998 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.609 of 1981 is restored," the division bench ruled.
While the City Civil Court opined that the private individuals have failed to produce enough evidence to prove ownership and possession of the land. The High Court, however, had said it was satisfied with the evidence.
With regard to possession of land, the bench stated, "The High Court has found fault with the trial court that despite there being abundant documentary evidence the trial court has wrongly dealt with the issue of adverse possession. In fact, the High Court has failed to understand the context in which the consideration with regard to possession had arisen."
