1. Dispute over land exclusion from reserved forest notification under the Telangana Forest Act — claim of private title via succession versus State's claim of vesting under Jagir Abolition Regulation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2081
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
The State Of Telangana Represented By Forest Divisional Officer - Appellant
Versus
Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9996 Of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025
Important Points
Administrative claims cannot override judicial determinations of land title; the State's ownership established through regulations is superior.
Subject
Property Law - Land Ownership Disputes
Act Referred
ABOLITION OF INAM ACT: S.2(c)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.27 R.1
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.227, Art.300
HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF JAGIRS REGULATION: Reg.1358(f)
LIMITATION ACT: Art.65
TELANGANA FOREST ACT: S.10, S.15, S.4, S.6, S.9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.27 R.1
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.227, Art.300
HYDERABAD ABOLITION OF JAGIRS REGULATION: Reg.1358(f)
LIMITATION ACT: Art.65
TELANGANA FOREST ACT: S.10, S.15, S.4, S.6, S.9
Headnote
(A) Telangana Forest Act, 1967 - Sections 4, 6, 10, and 15 - Dispute regarding land ownership - Court upheld that the disputed land is government land, rejecting claims by successors of Salar Jung III - The claimants lacked a valid title superior to the State's claim. (Paras 33, 34)
(B) Claims - It was determined that the FSO lacks the jurisdiction to decide on ownership; thus, administrative claims must not interfere with judicial determinations of title. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The claimants claimed rights over land classified under the Telangana Forest Act as reserved, contending it's private property inherited from Salar Jung III, whose estate was claimed to have been improperly integrated as forest land. (Paras 1.1, 3, 4, 30)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the claimants did not prove their title against the government, which was established as the rightful owner of the land under the Abolition Regulation and subsequent laws. (Paras 33-34)
Issues: The court examined jurisdiction issues regarding the FSO's authority to decide on property rights and whether the delayed claim was admissible. (Paras 20-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reiterated that administrative inquiries under the Telangana Forest Act cannot eclipse judicial determinations concerning land title and ownership, establishing that titles acquired by governments via adverse possession must be respected. (Paras 25-26)
Result: Civil Appeal allowed.
(B) Claims - It was determined that the FSO lacks the jurisdiction to decide on ownership; thus, administrative claims must not interfere with judicial determinations of title. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The claimants claimed rights over land classified under the Telangana Forest Act as reserved, contending it's private property inherited from Salar Jung III, whose estate was claimed to have been improperly integrated as forest land. (Paras 1.1, 3, 4, 30)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the claimants did not prove their title against the government, which was established as the rightful owner of the land under the Abolition Regulation and subsequent laws. (Paras 33-34)
Issues: The court examined jurisdiction issues regarding the FSO's authority to decide on property rights and whether the delayed claim was admissible. (Paras 20-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reiterated that administrative inquiries under the Telangana Forest Act cannot eclipse judicial determinations concerning land title and ownership, establishing that titles acquired by governments via adverse possession must be respected. (Paras 25-26)
Result: Civil Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
statutory authorities
- jurisdiction of forest settlement officer (Para 25)
-
statutory authorities
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alay H Razvi, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avi Leuna, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Mr. Ritik Raj, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar Shukla, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. C. S. Vaidhyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kodandaram Challa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Ms. Radhika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S.patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. D.ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D.tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sivanandh Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Kodandaram Challa, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv. Mr. Shivang Singh, Adv. Ms. G. Sushmita, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv. Mr. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv. Mr. Shaik Muntaz Begum, Adv. Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Anusha Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Govind Jee, AOR Mr. Omanakuttan K K, Adv. Ms. Rambha Singh, Adv. Ms. Laiba Arif, Adv. Mr. Ankur Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Parties Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alay H Razvi, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avi Leuna, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Mr. Ritik Raj, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar Shukla, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. C. S. Vaidhyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kodandaram Challa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Ms. Radhika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S.patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. D.ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D.tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sivanandh Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Kodandaram Challa, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv. Mr. Shivang Singh, Adv. Ms. G. Sushmita, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv. Mr. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv. Mr. Shaik Muntaz Begum, Adv. Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Anusha Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Govind Jee, AOR Mr. Omanakuttan K K, Adv. Ms. Rambha Singh, Adv. Ms. Laiba Arif, Adv. Mr. Ankur Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Claimants assert private ownership as Arazi-Makta; State contends land vested in Government upon Jagir abolition and was subsequently acquired by adverse possession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. FSO's summary jurisdiction under Section 10 cannot finally adjudicate title; Atiyat Courts lack jurisdiction over immovable property; evidence for private title is insufficient and contradictory. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Summary inquiries by statutory authorities cannot finally determine complex title disputes; Atiyat Courts' jurisdiction is limited to commutation sums and not immovable property rights. (Para 25 )
5. Appeal allowed — order excluding land from reserved forest set aside — land declared Government property — direction to complete final notification under Section 15. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. Does the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) have jurisdiction to finally adjudicate complex title disputes under the Telangana Forest Act?
No. The FSO conducts a summary inquiry under Section 10 to admit or reject claims to rights. It cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to finally decide the existence of title or ownership. (Para 25 )
7. Can the Atiyat Court determine the title or character of immovable property after the abolition of Jagirs?
No. Post-abolition, Atiyat Courts' jurisdiction is limited to inquiries into succession and entitlement to commutation sums. They lack jurisdiction to confer property rights or decide title to immovable property. (Para 30 )
8. What is the legal effect of the Abolition Regulation on Jagir lands?
The Abolition Regulation abolishes Jagirs and vests the lands solely in the State. Any claim to divest the State and revest the land in a private estate requires substantial proof beyond summary records. (Para 2 , 27 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. An extent of 102 Acres in Survey No. 201/1 Gurramguda Forest Block, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana, is the Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal.
1.1 The Civil Appeal examines the legality of the order dated 15.10.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer (“FSO”) made under Sections 4 and 6, read with Section 10 of the TELANGANA FOREST ACT , 1967 1[Previously, A.P. Act No. 1 of 1967.] (“ TELANGANA FOREST ACT ”). The consideration of the issues would require examination of the scheme of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F 2[ Corresponding to ~1949 AD] (“the Abolition Regulation”), Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (“Atiyat Enquiry Act”), Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (“Abolition of Inams Act”).
1.2 On 30.11.2005, Mir Jaffar Ali/Respondent no. 1 (“Claimant”) filed a claim petition before the FSO claiming a succession right through Salar Jung-III to the Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal. The FSO, at the first instance, vide order dated 03.09.2010, rejected the claim for exclusion from the proposed notification as a reserved forest, and held that the Subject Matter is Government land. The Claimants filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, IXth Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 14.03.2012, set aside the order dated 03.09.2010 of the FSO and remanded the matter to the FSO for fresh enquiry.
1.3 On remand, the FSO, by order dated 15.10.2014, accepted the claim of the Claimants for Subject Matter as Arazi-Makta of Salar Jung-III and requested the Divisional Forest Officer to exclude the subject matter of appeal from the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the TELANGANA FOREST ACT from Gurramguda Forest Block and send a revised map for Turkayamjal and Gurramguda villages for final proposals under Section 15 of the TELANGANA FOREST ACT to the Government. The Forest Department, aggrieved by the exclusion of subject matter from the reserve forest notification, filed CMA No. 5 of 2015 before the Appellate Authority, the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L B Nagar (“Principal District Judge”). On 23.09.2016, CMA No. 5 of 2015 was dismissed. The State, represented by the Forest Department, filed CRP No. 417 of 2017 in the High Court of the State of Telangana, and, by the order impugned, the release of the subject matter from the reserve forest notification was upheld. Hence, the appeal at the instance of the State represented by the Forest Department.
I. THE LEGAL JOURNEY
2. The above brief narrative leads us to the cause for the commencement of the present litigation, wherein the Claimants claim to be the successors-in- interest of Salar Jung-III of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. Stated further, on 13.09.1948, the Indian Army commenced Operation Polo, resulting in the surrender of the Sovereign of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The State of Hyderabad became part of the Union of India. In 1949, the Abolition Regulation was promulgated, resulting in the abolition of all the Jagirs in the erstwhile Nizam State. Government Order 9 dated 27.10.1949 was issued to reorganise the survey and settlement department, resulting in the revision surveys of land in the erstwhile State of Nizam. On 14.03.1952, the Atiyat Enquiry Act was promulgated and published. On 20.07.1955, the Abolition of Inams Act was promulgated and notified in the Official Gazette. These enactments, with a few legislative amendments over the years, have been in operation in the administration and regularisation of land tenures, grant of pattas, etc., in the State of Telangana. 3[See, State of AP (now State of Telangana) v. AP State Waqf Board and Others (2022 2 SCC 383) for a comprehensive assimilation of the march of legislation in the State of Telangana.] In Claim Petition No. 1 of 2005 in File No. 786 of 2005, filed for exclusion of subject matter from the reserved forest, the Claimants presented their case as fo
