Universities, being centers of growth and learning, need expansive campuses for academic and holistic student development.
Published Apr 11, 2025 | 6:00 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 11, 2025 | 6:00 PM
Students of the University of Hyderabad take out a protest rally against the Telangana government to save the green area, one of the remaining urban forests in Hyderabad.
Synopsis: The disputed land at Kancha Gachibowli belongs neither to the government nor the university. It belongs to society. Official lethargy coupled with the soporific attitude of the university has led to the current dispute.
The Telangana government is vociferously claiming that an artificial intelligence-powered image related to the land dispute at Kancha Gachibowli is fake. It registered cases, besides detaining people illegally.
However, a scrutiny of the events that preceded lays bare the government’s mistakes, lies, and distortion of facts that outweigh any error in the said image.
It is pertinent to recall here poet Vemana’s words: “If one claims a piece of land as his, the land laughs mockingly.”
But since we are sprinting from the ancient age of truth and reason — often called the Dark Middle Ages — into a post-truth era, the question of “whose land is it” has become the main controversy.
The discussion over the ownership of the land at the Hyderabad University is now mired in arguments, counter-arguments, and baseless claims, leaving all confused. The truth is being painted as falsehood and falsehood as truth, leaving no room for rational, factual, and people-oriented debate.
What should be accepted and practised must rest on three cornerstones: rationality, factual analysis, and public interest. But today, more illogical, self-centered, and anti-public arguments are passed off as truth.
The land that has been under the authority — and in the possession — of the University of Hyderabad for 70 years has now being claimed as government land, a new kind of post-truth falsehood is being peddled.
No one is asking how the land could belong to the government. Can a government be considered the owner of the property? Even if legal terminology allows it, the historical context of the land is being ignored.
The disputed land was Sarf-e-Khas property or Jagir land before 17 September 1948. Due to the then prevailing feudal values all land in the kingdom belonged to the king. The Nizams also exercised authority to designate certain land as the king’s own (Sarf-e-Khas) for personal use or to grant it as Jagirs to cronies and nobles.
But fundamentally, showing land — which is a natural resource inherited by society — as belonging to an individual is problematic. At best, a piece of land may be given to a trustee or an administrative body to manage for public needs. However, even then, they cannot claim it as their own.
In society, property is either personal or social. A portion of the social property may be managed by organisations chosen or appointed by society, but society itself is the only permanent owner, not the managing institutions. If those institutions fail in their duties or violate their responsibilities, they lose the right to manage that land.
To understand the current land disputes in the Hyderabad region, we need a brief look at history.
In feudal monarchies, where land was the main resource and revenue source, control over land equated to social power. Thus, kings began claiming all land under their rule as their personal property.
Terms like “lord of the earth” and “ruler of the land” emerged, and kings began asserting ownership of any land traversed by their horses or given away in donation. But none of those kings brought land with them at birth, nor did most of them ever work on that land.
The actual stewards of the land were always the farmers who toiled on it or it remained untouched for future community use.
This historical truth is clear: land belongs to farmers and society; not kings, rulers, or governments.
The Asaf Jahi rule of Hyderabad was also rooted in this monarchical tradition of treating falsehoods as truths. Of the 53 million acres in the Hyderabad state, the Nizam declared 5.2 million acres as Sarf-e-Khas for his personal and household expenses.
Additionally, nearly a third of the land — about 20 million acres — was given to nobles as Paigahs, Umras, jagirs, Inams, Maktas, estates, or other grants. In every village, landlords with political, caste, and economic power held hundreds or thousands of acres.
After the so-called “Police Action” on 17 September 1948, when Hyderabad came under military administration, both the military and central governments were shocked by the extent of land in Nizam’s name and in the hands of nobles. They deemed it inappropriate for the deposed Nizam or his cronies to continue holding such land.
On 22 February 1949, a decree was issued abolishing Sarf-e-Khas, transferring 520,000 acres to the Hyderabad government, which at that time meant the military or central government. Of this land, 789 villages were in Telangana, and 573 in the Atraf Balda district (around Hyderabad).
Similarly, the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1356 Fasli, issued in August 1949 brought 16.4 million acres of Jagir land under the government’s control.
Though this isn’t the place to dive into full details, the key point is this: over the years, the Hyderabad and later Andhra Pradesh governments suddenly became owners of hundreds of thousands or millions of acres of land. This tragic history shows how the government, instead of preserving and managing society’s land, irresponsibly handed it over to its dependents.
In that process, some of the land was indeed allocated for industrial and social development. One such case is Hyderabad University.
Following the 1969 Telangana movement, which highlighted the lack of educational opportunities for Telangana students, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi promised a central university in Hyderabad as part of the six-point programme.
Subsequently, the state government allocated 2,324 acres for the university. This was not the government gifting its property but returning a portion of society’s land for the public good.
Universities, being centers of growth and learning, need expansive campuses for academic and holistic student development. Hence, globally, large land allocations for universities are the norm.
Due to the usual government lethargy and lack of diligence by the university officials, the land was never officially transferred to the university’s name in revenue records. Strictly speaking, this land doesn’t belong to the government or the university. It belongs to society.
It was allocated for future generations through an institution meant to serve society’s educational needs. Yet, today, officials are turning the technical question of whose name is on the title into a major controversy.
Over the past 50 years, the government has repeatedly chipped away at this land, giving away hundreds of acres to others. During N Chandrababu Naidu’s tenure as the chief minister (of the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh), the worst of these giveaways occurred: 400 acres were handed to a dubious sports organisation barely days after it was formed.
The organisation’s setup and the man claiming to lead it were controversial from the start. The Congress later made an election promise to take back the land.
Later, chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy passed a law cancelling the agreement between the government and IMG Bharata. IMG Bharata challenged the cancellation in the High Court in 2006. On 7 March 2024, the High Court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, dismissed the petition.
IMG then appealed to the Supreme Court. Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol dismissed the plea on 3 May.
Now, the government is wrongly interpreting these rulings to claim that the High Court and Supreme Court declared the land to be government-owned. But in reality, both rulings only addressed the validity of the 2003 contract. They said the contract was invalid — they never ruled on who owns the land.
So, just because the 2003 agreement was made void, how does it mean that the land belongs to the government? During the case, it would have been better if the university had also impleaded and petitioned for its land to be returned.
Even now, the land is under the university’s control. Whether it is forest land preserved for environmental causes or land allocated for future generations, the government has no right over it. Who holds the title is not even the real issue.
(The writer is the editor of an independent, small Telugu monthly journal of society and political economy, running for the past 23 years. Views expressed here are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
