The Supreme Court of India has set aside the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO), the District Court, and the Telangana High Court which had excluded 102 acres of land in Ranga Reddy District from the Gurramguda Forest Block. The Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Telangana, holding that the land in question is Government land and rejected the claims of succession asserted by the legal heirs of the late Salar Jung-III.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti ruled that the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) exceeded his jurisdiction under the Telangana Forest Act, 1967, by adjudicating on the title of the property in a summary inquiry and condoning a delay of over 33 years in filing the claim.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to 102 acres of land in Survey No. 201/1, Gurramguda Forest Block, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The State contended that the land was transferred to the Forest Department by the Board of Revenue in 1953 for a soil conservation research centre. A notification under Section 4 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 proposing to constitute the land as a reserved forest was issued on June 18, 1971, followed by a proclamation under Section 6 in 1972.
On November 30, 2005—nearly 33 years after the proclamation—Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (Respondent No. 1) filed a claim petition before the FSO. The claimants asserted succession rights through Salar Jung-III, claiming the land was “Arazi-Makta” (self-acquired private property) purchased by an ancestor in 1833 AD and released from the Jagir administration in 1954.
Initially, the FSO rejected the claim in 2010. However, after a remand by the Appellate Authority, the FSO passed a fresh order on October 15, 2014, accepting the claim and directing the exclusion of the land from the forest notification. This decision was upheld by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and subsequently by the High Court of Telangana in a Civil Revision Petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Telangana argued that upon the abolition of Jagirs under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F, the land vested solely in the State. It was contended that the FSO lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership and title disputes under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Forest Act. The State further argued that the claim was barred by limitation and that the FSO could not condone a delay of 33 years.
The Respondents (Claimants) argued that the land was the private property of Salar Jung-III and not Government land. They relied on a letter from the Jagir Administrator dated April 24, 1954, and a Gazette Notification from 1956 to assert that the land was released to the Salar Jung Estate. They contended that since the final notification under Section 15 of the Forest Act had not been issued, the FSO had the authority to entertain claims and condone the delay under Section 16 of the Act.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed examination of the jurisdiction of the FSO and the historical legal framework governing Jagirs and Inams in Telangana.
Jurisdiction of the Forest Settlement Officer The Court observed that an inquiry under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act is “summary in nature” and intended to verify claims to rights such as right of way or water, not to adjudicate complex title disputes.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The FSO, in his jurisdiction, can admit a claim to a right in or over any land, but in the summary procedure, cannot assume the jurisdiction of deciding the very existence of the right in an inquiry under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act… Any attempt by statutory authority to finally pronounce upon title would amount to jurisdictional overreach.”
Validity of the Title Claim The Court scrutinized the documents relied upon by the claimants, including the alleged 1833 sale deed and the 1954 letter from the Jagir Administrator. The Bench noted that accepting the claim that the land was divested from the Government and revested in the estate based on “scanty records/copies of letters” was “highly improbable” and amounted to a “perverse recording of a finding.”
Limitation and Delay The Court criticized the lower authorities for entertaining a claim filed 33 years after the Section 6 proclamation. The judgment stated:
“A regularly instituted suit in 1977 was found to be beyond the period of limitation, and curiously, in a summary enquiry under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act, it is held that the claim is not barred by limitation… Even if the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing a claim, the same does not have the effect of upsetting the title acquired through prescription.”
Role of Atiyat Courts Referring to the precedent in State of AP v. AP State Waqf Board (2022), the Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of Atiyat Courts is confined to the distribution or succession of commutation sums and does not extend to determining the title of immovable property.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the subject matter has been Government land and the claim of the respondents was untenable. The Court set aside the order of the FSO dated October 15, 2014, as confirmed by the Principal District Judge and the High Court.
The Bench issued the following direction:
“The Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, is directed to ensure completion of pending proposals under Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act for including the Subject Matter as a reserved forest within 8 weeks, and file the compliance status report before the Registry of this Court.”
Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 9996 of 2025 filed by the State was allowed. The connected Civil Appeal No. 9997 of 2025 filed by Sri Aga Syed Naimath Ullah Shustri was dismissed in light of the judgment.
Case Details:
- Case Title: The State of Telangana Represented by Forest Divisional Officer v. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9996 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
