State Seeks 3 Weeks to File Counter in Khajaguda Land PIL Filed by Congress MLAs

The Bench questioned the delay in raising the issue when the orders dated back to 1995. In response, counsel for the petitioners said fresh orders were issued in 2023 in violation of provisions of the Revenue Act.

Update: 2026-03-24 18:06 GMT
The petition was filed by MLAs Janampalli Anirudh Reddy, Yennam Srinivas Reddy, Murali Nayak Bukya and Kuchukulla Rajesh Reddy, alleging that the land is government property that was illegally transferred and is now being developed into high-rise structures by a private entity. (Image: DC)

Hyderabad: The Telangana government on Tuesday sought three weeks’ time to file its counter affidavit in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Congress MLAs seeking recovery of about 27 acres of land near Khajaguda lake.

The petition was filed by MLAs Janampalli Anirudh Reddy, Yennam Srinivas Reddy, Murali Nayak Bukya and Kuchukulla Rajesh Reddy, alleging that the land is government property that was illegally transferred and is now being developed into high-rise structures by a private entity.

Counsel for the petitioners, Chikkudu Prabhakar, informed the High Court that the government had not filed its counter despite earlier directions. He also submitted that criminal cases had been registered against the MLAs. The court sought details of these cases and directed that they be furnished.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing the PIL. The court allowed interim applications filed by legal heirs of the reported landowners, Sikander Khan and Salabat Khan, to implead them as respondents.

Senior counsel appearing for private parties contended that the PIL was filed to exert pressure and did not qualify as public interest litigation. He submitted that the petitioners had not made the builder a respondent and stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer had cleared issues relating to the land in 1995, with orders issued on September 31, 1995, and approved by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.

The Bench questioned the delay in raising the issue when the orders dated back to 1995. In response, counsel for the petitioners said fresh orders were issued in 2023 in violation of provisions of the Revenue Act.

The court adjourned the matter to April 17.

Tags:    

Similar News