Telangana HC Rejects BRS Leader’s Claim on Bathukammakunta Land
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed the plea of BRS leader Aedla Sudhakar Reddy of Bagh Amberpet, who sought that the GHMC, HMDA, HYDRAA and revenue department be restrained from undertaking the renovation/rejuvenation of Bathukammakunta, a lake in Amberpet here.
Sudhakar Reddy claimed that the tank land, measuring seven acres in Survey No.563/1 at Bagh Amberpet belonged to his family members based on an agreement of sale dated 16.01.1986 from one late Syed Azam. He said the vendor had purchased the land under a sale deed from Pingali Venkatram Reddy and that it was dry land meant for the construction of residential houses. The land was never classified as a water body, Sudhakar Reddy contended.
Sudhakar Reddy had earlier filed a writ petition before a single judge bench, seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession of the land. After Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy dismissed the petition, Sudhakar Reddy filed an appeal before the division bench, which dismissed it and upheld the findings of the single judge.
The single judge noted that Sudhakar Reddy failed to produce any title document and was claiming the land ownership based solely on possession, supported by an unregistered sale agreement. The pahani for the year 1967-68 had the name of the account holder as B. Venkat Reddy and Pingali Venkatram Reddy’s name was not there.
As per the pahani for 1972-73, the word ‘errakunta’ was noted in the column related to the nature of the land, which is tank land. The court considered whether or not it was a private tank or a public tank. This was not mentioned, and when a tank is described as “private” in the register, that by itself will not establish that the land where the tank is situated is private land.
The single judge also recalled that as per the Master Plan sanctioned in GO Ms. No. 363, dated 21.08.2010, the land in Survey No.563/1 was earmarked as a water body and the government had issued GO MS. No. 120 dated 02.12.2010 transferring 399 tanks/lakes/water bodies from the control of the irrigation and command area development department to the municipal administration and urban development department.
The tank was notified as a water body. The full tank level (FTL) of the Bathukammakunta was fixed by the irrigation department as per the cadastral map in full shape and a preliminary notification was issued on 04.12.2021 vide Lake ID No.5100/EEN/01. The court questioned what the petitioner and his family members had done all this time if they were claiming the land. They never challenged the GOs issued by the government.
The court made it clear that in the event of a dispute with regard to the nature of the land and its classification, any claimant like the petitioner Sudhakar Reddy would have to approach the competent civil court and establish title. In the absence of any declaratory decree from the competent civil court, the petitioners’ claim as owners of the land could not be countenanced and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The division bench upheld the decision of the single judge and refused to stop the rejuvenation works at Bathukammakunta.
