HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has resolved a decade-long dispute over nearly 200 acres of prime land in Gachibowli by upholding the revenue divisional officer’s (RDO) order that recognized the ownership rights of protected tenants, overriding the sub-collector’s contradictory findings.
This case involved agricultural land valued at approximately ₹15,000 crore, spanning several survey numbers in Gachibowli. The dispute arose between the descendants of protected tenants and subsequent purchasers, including members of the Diamond Hills Welfare Association.
The petitioners, heirs of the protected tenants, contested the sub-collector’s 2016 order that reversed the RDO’s 2013 decision. The RDO had previously determined that the petitioners’ predecessors were validly recognized as protected tenants and entitled to ownership certificates under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, emphasizing a lack of evidence for any lawful surrender of tenancy rights as per section 19 of the Act.
Conversely, the sub-collector claimed that the tenancy law was no longer applicable because the land had been redeveloped for residential use, prompting the tenants to appeal to the high court.
In a thorough 156-page judgment, Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy criticized the sub-collector’s actions, highlighting how a comprehensive order had been issued within 24 hours during a sanctioned leave, which raised significant concerns regarding the fairness and legality of the process.
The judge concluded that the sub-collector had overstepped his jurisdiction and interfered with findings that had already been established through judicial rulings. The court reaffirmed that the RDO is the authoritative entity under the Tenancy Act and had appropriately recognized the petitioners’ ownership rights.
Furthermore, the court clarified that matters relating to registered sale deeds between private individuals must be resolved exclusively by civil courts, not revenue authorities.
Consequently, the High Court invalidated the 2016 order, reinstated the RDO’s 2013 decision, and mandated that the matter is now considered resolved.
