Tardy Babus Cost Telangana ₹4k-Cr Land

The offices of both the Medchal-Malkajgiri collector and the Advocate-General were to be squarely blamed for the government losing land, said to be worth at least `4,000 crore, to the private builder Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd, as the dismissal of the appeal was based on a simple technical flaw — delay in filing the special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.

The ground for dismissal was the delay of 219 days in filing the appeal after a division bench of the Telangana High Court issued orders in favour of Shanta Sriram, which is also a litigant over government land in Banjara Hills. The state should have mandatorily filed the appeal in the apex court within 90 days of the High Court order.

Calling it a “callous” approach. sources told Deccan Chronicle that the action of the two government functionaries in responsible positions came as a blow to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s efforts to protect valuable government land. Recently, when the High Court threatened to get HYDRAA chief A.V. Ranganath arrested by the military and wanted the state government to transfer him over the same land, the Chief Minister came out openly in support of protecting the land worth `4,000 crore in Lothkunta and HYDRAA’s actions in this regard.

According to sources, the Medcal-Malkajgiri district revenue authorities took their own sweet time to refer the case to the Advocate-General’s office and obtain his opinion on filing the SLP. The A-G office took time and the SLP was hurriedly filed only in June this year, when the High Court took serious note of HYDRAA’s alleged contempt. “The government will unnecessarily be blamed for the delay which will be construed as a deliberate attempt to help the private builder,” sources close to the Chief Minister said, adding that a thorough inquiry should be initiated to bring out a nexus, if any, and fix responsibility for the delayed filing of the SLP.

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Deepankar Gupta refused to intervene in the High Court judgment, observing that the state government had failed to challenge the order within the stipulated period. The apex court also made it clear that the state could not seek to overcome the delay by advancing what it termed excuses.

The High Court, in its judgment dated October 7, 2025, had dismissed the state’s appeal in CCCA No. 49 of 2022 and upheld an order of a trial court dated April 19, 2022. The trial court had rejected the state’s suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), holding that it was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action.

Before the Supreme Court, the state government contended that the alleged encroachment by Shanta Sriram Constructions had taken place around 2013 and that its alleged attempt to link Survey No.s1 and 2 of Lothkunta with Government Land Register (GLR) No. 243 came to light only during subsequent joint surveys, eviction proceedings and writ litigation.

The government argued that the revenue entries and acquisition-related records relied upon by the company were allegedly the result of misrepresentation and that, in cases involving fraud, limitation should be reckoned from the date on which the fraud was discovered. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the explanation offered for the delay in approaching the court.