Maheswaram Forest Land Row in Telangana Reaches High Court Over 383 Acre Dispute
Telangana government tells High Court that 383 acre Maheswaram forest land in Rangareddy is being siphoned off without valid title as petitioners claim ownership based on revenue records.
- Maheswaram forest land dispute over 383 acre reaches Telangana High Court
- Telangana government says land is forest and government property
- Petitioners claim ownership using revenue records and inheritance rights
A legal dispute over 383 acre of land in Maheswaram village of Rangareddy district has come under the scrutiny of the Telangana High Court, with the state government alleging attempts to illegally claim forest land.
Presenting its arguments before a division bench, the Telangana government stated that the land in question is classified as forest and government property in historical records. Officials argued that attempts are being made to take control of the land using internal file notings without any valid legal ownership.
The state emphasized that old revenue documents, including records dating back to 1929, clearly identify the land as government owned and forest categorized area. It further claimed that entries showing the petitioners as owners are not legally valid and cannot be treated as proof of title.
According to the government, even if the petitioners’ claims are considered, the land would fall under surplus category as per land reform laws. It also pointed out that the forest department has maintained possession of the land for more than five decades, strengthening the government’s position.
On the other hand, the petitioners argued that they are rightful owners, stating that the land was inherited and supported by revenue records. They also challenged the rejection of their compensation claims by forest authorities, calling it arbitrary and inconsistent with earlier positions taken by officials.
The case stems from a previous order by a single judge, who had ruled in favour of the petitioners. The judge observed that the government failed to justify classifying the land as government property despite existing revenue entries, and held those records as valid proof of ownership.
The court also noted that a land acquisition notification issued in 1999 had lapsed, weakening the government’s claim over the land based on that notification.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the division bench did not deliver a final verdict and has scheduled the next hearing for April 7. The petitioners have been asked to further justify the earlier court order in their favour.
