The Telangana High Court on Tuesday stayed the cancellation of four sale deeds by the State government in the sensational ‘Miyapur land scam’ case.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, however, directed the State, which cancelled the sale deeds and the private parties claiming rights over nearly 609 acres of land, to maintain status quo in the case. The interim direction was given while hearing two writ appeals filed by P.S. Parthasarathy and Suvishal Power Gen Limited. These two parties were made accused by the Telangana police in the ‘Miyapur land scam’.
Presenting arguments on behalf of the State government, Advocate-General B.S. Prasad said the persons involved in the fraud had colluded with some Sub-Registrars. They projected the 690 acres of land as Inam land and maintained that they were registering only the transfer of sanad rights over that land. “Under this guise, they transferred 690 acres of land and they didn’t pay even the required stamp duty,” the AG told the court. He told the bench that the Sub-Registrars having complicity in the case were suspended and arrested as well.
SC verdict awaited
The AG expressed apprehensions that the relief granted by the court would impact the trial of the case, registered and investigated by the Telangana police. The bench, however, remarked that the stay order issued by it would not preclude the State from pursuing the case in the trial court. “The matter would be taken up after the Supreme Court pronounces its final verdict on the title of the land,” the bench said. This was a case of dispute over ownership of land pending before the apex court. Both the State and the private parties made conflicting claims over the property. Being one of the claimants, the State unilaterally cannot cancel the sale deeds as the title of the land was yet to be determined, the bench said.
In this backdrop, the order passed by the Serilingampally Mandal Revenue Officer representing the State cancelling the four sale deeds was being stayed, the bench said. Taking into consideration the apprehensions expressed by the AG, who argued that the accused had tried to usurp the State’s property through illegal documents, the bench directed both the parties to maintain status quo. The State and the private parties were instructed not to create any third party interests over the disputed land until the matter was finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Persons in possession of the land can enjoy the possession. However, they cannot sell it. They were also directed not to lease or mortgage it.
