The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a batch of civil appeals challenging the Telangana Government’s ownership of disputed land in Miyapur village, Ranga Reddy district. The dispute concerns approximately 550 acres and 39 guntas in Survey Nos. 100 and 101, over which several individuals and societies asserted competing ownership claims.
A Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the judgment on October 29, 2026, refusing to interfere with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated April 16, 2003.
Background
The land dispute arose from competing claims based on historical grants, inheritance and property transactions. The appellants traced their alleged rights through different individuals associated with the former Paigah and jagir estate.
The judgment refers to village survey records from 1912 that classified the land as sarkari poramboke, indicating government land. The dispute subsequently reached the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which delivered different findings in separate proceedings.
In cases where the State was a party, the Special Court declared the State to be the rightful owner. However, in Land Grabbing Cases Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994, the State had not been impleaded. The Andhra Pradesh High Court later upheld the findings favouring the State in the relevant cases and set aside the earlier decision in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994.
The Supreme Court examined the historical documents, the 1929 firman and the legal consequences of the abolition of jagirs under the applicable regulations. It distinguished between a grant conferring rights over land revenue and ownership of the land itself.
The Court observed:
“In this regard, we would like to clarify that the grant of paigah, would mean an estate granted for the maintenance of the army. A jagir would mean a grant of the estate qua the right in respect of land revenue. Therefore, a grant of jagir is not to be misconstrued as one of title over the property.”
The Bench also considered the effect of the abolition of jagirs and the payment of a commutation amount to the former jagirdar. It found that the appellants had not established the title necessary to support their claims over the disputed land.
The Court separately examined the claim associated with Raheemunnisa Begum, wife of Abdul Salam. It noted that the disputed revenue entries appeared after the land had vested in the State and that no corresponding transfer or mutation order supported the entries.
The judgment also referred to an inspection conducted on October 19, 1995, which recorded that the land was wasteland covered with boulders, with no visible agricultural operations or possession by any party.
The Bench held:
“In view of the same, we find that the revenue entries in her favour are bogus and not genuine, as it is a case of fraud orchestrated by persons in collusion with the revenue officials. We find no perversity in the findings recorded by both, the Special Court in LGC Nos. 110/1994, 131/1995 and 136/1995, and the High Court on this aspect.”
The Court also declined to entertain a claim based on an alleged auction purchase and a will that had been raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. It noted that these claims had not been raised before the Special Court or the High Court.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and the pending applications, including applications for impleadment and intervention. It made no order as to costs.
The Bench also clarified that the decisions in LGC Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994 would not bind the State, as the State had not been made a party to those proceedings.
Rejecting the request for equitable relief, the Court observed:
“We also do not find any reason to invoke equities in favour of the parties. As discussed above, it is a clear-cut case of attempts being made to grab valuable lands vested in the State. As the very title of the appellants itself is lacking, there is no question of granting any equitable reliefs.”
Case Title: Bandari Ramchander & Ors. v. Maitri Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10699 of 2013 and connected appeals
