Compromising their position, the petitioners admitted that they did not possess a registered sale deed to substantiate their ownership. Moreover, earlier judicial proceedings had not affirmed the seller’s title. These admissions, together with the inconsistencies in documentation and the discrepancies between the original and revalidated agreements, led the Court to conclude that the petitioners had failed to establish any valid legal title.

Insufficient Evidence of Possession

Concerning possession, the petitioners relied on two interim court orders, claiming these confirmed their control over the land. The Court disagreed, holding that interim orders do not establish legal possession and fail to demonstrate continuous or actual physical control. It restated that lawful possession in writ proceedings must be supported by credible documentary evidence, not assumptions or provisional court directions. In this case, the petitioners had provided no such evidence.

The land in question formed part of a 99.07 acre tract that had long been declared surplus and vested in the State under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land Reforms Act). While the petitioners argued that the land had been returned to them or their predecessors through a General Power of Attorney (GPA), the Court observed that there was no reliable or official record to support such a claim. Once land is vested in the State, the Court explained, any subsequent claim must be supported by valid documentation and cannot be revived through informal or unauthorized arrangements.

Contradictory Claims and Misuse of Judicial Proceedings

The Court further observed a pattern of shifting and inconsistent claims by the original landowners and the petitioners. Their positions had varied significantly across proceedings under both the Land Reforms Act and The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Land Ceiling Act) frequently contradicting their own earlier statements. This conduct, the Court observed, appeared to be a careful contest to revive issues that had previously been settled, thereby challenging the validity of the State’s legal title.

The Court cited preceding judgements, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Audikesava Reddy (2002) and Omprakash Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010), in which similar claims were set aside. It determined that the present petition was alternative attempt to revive earlier decided matters without presenting any new or credible evidence.

Scope and Limits of Writ Jurisdiction

In dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division Bench’s decision to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be applied in the absence of a prima facie case. The Court explained that its observations were preliminary and solely intended to justify the dismissal of the writ petition. Nevertheless, it affirmed that the petitioners retained the right to pursue appropriate civil remedies, subject to statutory limitations and compliance with procedural requirements.

Legal Process and Interim Relief

In a related aspect of the case, the Court examined an earlier order by the Division Bench that had restrained the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) from evicting the appellants or demolishing existing structures on a 53-acre portion of the land without following due process. This directive, based on prior interim orders, reaffirmed the judiciary’s consistent emphasis on procedural fairness even when possession is disputed. The Supreme Court upheld this limited defence, making it clear that any eviction or demolition must adhere strictly to lawful procedure.

Background of the Omprakash Verma Case

To provide context, the Court revisited its earlier decision in Omprakash Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which involved a 526.07 acre tract in Survey No. 83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) village. Originally owned by Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and others, the land was impacted by the Land Reforms Act, resulting in 99.07 acres being declared surplus and vested in the State by 1975. Under the Land Ceiling Act, the owners further declared the land as non-agricultural, leading to the allotment of 470.33 acres to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

While some parties including the current appellants purchased portions of the land through registered sale deeds, the Supreme Court had earlier upheld the cancellation of these deeds, reaffirming the State’s title. Attempts by the original owners to reclaim the land through compensation or statutory exemptions were also rejected, as they had voluntarily accepted the consequences of the Land Ceiling Act.

The Contested 53 acres Segment

A significant part of the current dispute centres on a 53 acres parcel from the original 99.07 acres. During earlier proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act, the GPA holder contended that this land should be exempted from the surplus declaration under the Land Reforms Act. Although the Land Tribunal initially rejected the claim, the matter was remanded for review and later decided in the GPA holder’s favour. The State has since challenged that outcome, and the issue remains unresolved.

Available records suggest that this 53 acres parcel may have been returned to the original declarants in 1990, with possession transferred to the GPA holder. However, the legal validity of this return remains ambiguous. The remaining 46.20 acres are under separate litigation before the High Court. Despite the appellants’ claim of ownership based on these developments, the Court found no legally enforceable evidence supporting their assertions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that legal claims to land must be supported by credible, consistent, and lawfully executed documentation especially when the land has vested in the State under land reform laws. The Court made it clear that determination cannot replace legal merit and firmly rejected attempts to reopen settled matters without new evidence. While upholding procedural fairness through limited interim protections, the Court emphasised that rightful ownership must be based on demonstrable and valid title, not mere possession or historical association. The judgment reinforces the high burden of proof required in complex land disputes and the finality of judicial decisions.

This article was originally published in Bar & Bench on 25 June 2025 Written by: Ashoo Gupta, Partner. Click here for original article

Read Less-