Court Cautions HYDRAA Chief in Contempt Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday closed a contempt petition filed against HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath over the delayed implementation of its orders relating to private land in Suraram village of Medchal‑Malkajgiri district. However, the court expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the official responded to the proceedings and cautioned that such conduct could adversely affect his career.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing a contempt petition alleging non‑compliance with the court’s earlier directions to remove a public notice board and fencing erected on two private land parcels within 48 hours of the order. During the previous hearing on May 6, the court had directed the HYDRAA commissioner to appear in person and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday morning, the Commissioner was absent. The court took serious note of his failure to appear and also pointed out that no affidavit seeking exemption from personal appearance had been filed. The matter was subsequently posted to the afternoon session, directing the official to submit an affidavit explaining his absence.

Later, counsel representing HYDRAA filed an affidavit informing the court that its orders had been complied with and sought exemption from the Commissioner’s appearance. After examining the affidavit, Justice Shravan Kumar observed that it was incomplete and appeared to have been filed in a casual manner. The court noted that the affidavit neither adequately explained the delay in compliance nor expressed any regret for failing to adhere to the court’s directions within the stipulated time.

The judge remarked that affidavits should not be treated as a mere formality and warned that disregard for court orders and hurried actions by officials could have serious professional consequences. The court orally observed that such conduct would only affect the officer’s career and advised adherence to established legal procedures in future.

During the hearing, senior counsel G. Vidyasagar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the affidavit failed to provide valid reasons for the delay and reflected an indifferent attitude towards judicial orders. He contended that at the very least, the official should have expressed remorse for the lapse.

The court also questioned the necessity of erecting boards on disputed properties and remarked that such actions unnecessarily inconvenience citizens. It observed that the land and the parties involved were not going anywhere and that authorities could wait until disputes arise before taking such measures.

While accepting the affidavit on this occasion, Justice Shravan Kumar made it clear that such lapses should not recur. The court exempted the HYDRAA commissioner from further personal appearance in the matter and closed the contempt petition. It, however, directed the authorities to file a detailed affidavit within a week outlining all steps taken to ensure compliance with the court’s orders.

The matter has been adjourned for further consideration after the filing of the compliance affidavit.

HC orders status quo on 5 acres in Khanamet

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed maintenance of the status quo over five acres of land in Khanamet village of Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy district, which the government has earmarked for the construction of the proposed Cyberabad municipal corporation headquarters.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy passed the interim order while hearing a batch of five writ petitions filed by Jagruthi foundations, Mahipal Reddy, and others challenging proceedings issued by the tahsildar, Serilingampally, on 30 May 2026, resuming the disputed land. The court directed that the existing status of the land be maintained until the state government files its counter affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on 7 July 2026.

The petitioners have sought quashing of the tahsildar’s proceedings, contending that the authorities are attempting to dispossess them of lands they claim to have been lawfully purchased and possessed for decades.

Senior counsel Desai Prakash Reddy, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that his client has been in possession of Ac.2.06 guntas in Survey No. 55 of Khanamet village since 1997 after purchasing the property through registered sale deeds. He submitted that the land has consistently been reflected as patta land in revenue records and that the petitioner’s possession has been recognised for nearly three decades.

The senior counsel further pointed out that the state had earlier initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982, alleging that the land had been illegally occupied. However, the High Court set aside the findings of the land grabbing court and held that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, who could not be branded as a land grabber.

According to the petitioners, the government had itself taken a specific stand in the earlier land-grabbing proceedings that the disputed Ac.2.06 guntas was separate from the five-acre extent assigned to one Gangula Sandaiah. The petitioners argued that the authorities are now taking a contradictory position by claiming that the land forms part of the assigned extent and is liable to be resumed under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act.

The writ petitions also refer to earlier disputes involving the Hyderabad disaster response and asset protection agency (HYDRAA). The petitioners alleged that HYDRAA had attempted to dispossess them of the land earlier this year and that separate writ petitions challenging those actions are still pending before the High Court.

They contended that the impugned proceedings were passed without jurisdiction, ignored binding findings recorded by the High Court in earlier litigation, and violated their constitutional right to property. The petitioners further asserted that the land has been reflected as private patta land in revenue records since the 1960s and that their predecessors-in-title have been in uninterrupted possession for several decades.

After hearing submissions from the petitioners’ counsel and the advocate general representing the state, Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the disputed land until further orders and adjourned the batch of writ petitions to 7 July 2026.

HC orders SIT probe into Khanamet land fraud

Taking serious note of an alleged attempt to grab nearly 15 acres of government land in Khanamet village, Serilingampally mandal, through fabricated assignment documents purportedly issued in favour of ex servicemen, the Telangana High Court has directed the DGP to constitute a high level Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the involvement of revenue and other officials responsible for creating the documents.

The court also imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on Bengaluru based Ittina Properties Private Limited, which had claimed the property based on the alleged fabricated documents.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that the writ petition was founded on bogus patta certificates and fabricated revenue records allegedly created to establish title over government land in Survey Nos. 41/12, 41/13 and 41/14 of Khanamet village. The court invoked the legal maxim fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud vitiates everything), holding that fraud destroys all rights claimed under such documents.

The judge refuted arguments that the alleged bogus assignment certificates dated back to 1973 and could not be set aside after 50 years, noting that revenue entries made through mutation proceedings could not validate fraudulent documents. He made it clear that no statutory protection, limitation period or constitutional provision can shield an act executed via fraud, which nullifies agreements, judgments and statutory rights retroactively.

The dispute concerned land claimed by the real estate company on the basis of sale deeds executed by alleged assignees projected as ex servicemen. The state contended that the underlying assignment pattas were fake and that the lands formed part of government property.

The court found glaring irregularities in the documents. It noted that the patta certificates bore the seal of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, even though that office was established only in 1978, several years after the certificates were purportedly issued in 1972 and 1973. The court held that the documents were “fake and bogus” and incapable of conferring any right, title or interest.

Justice Bheemapaka further recorded that the claim that the lands were assigned to ex servicemen was unsupported by evidence. On examining the pattas, the court found they were purportedly issued to landless poor persons and not ex servicemen, undermining the petitioners’ case.

The court also questioned mutation proceedings allegedly issued in 1993 by a “Recording Officer” who lacked authority under the Record of Rights Act, observing that such proceedings appeared fabricated and never implemented in official revenue records.

Expressing concern over the role of public officials, the court remarked that despite apparent fabrication of documents, government officers had remained “mute spectators” and failed to initiate action against those responsible.

Justice Bheemapaka ordered the DGP to constitute a SIT headed by an IPS officer of additional commissioner rank to investigate the fabrication of patta certificates, creation of false revenue records, the involvement of officials, and all related transactions concerning the land. The SIT has been directed to submit its report to the chief secretary and principal secretary, Revenue Department, within four weeks.

Dismissing the writ petition, the court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the company, directing the amount to be deposited in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.