Telangana HC Seeks Govt Response on Land Irregularities in Bandlaguda Housing Society

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government to place on record complete details relating to the lands of the Industrial Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd at Bandlaguda of Patancheru, and to explain the alleged irregularities in its administration. Justice T. Madhavi Devi issued notices to the Chief Secretary, principal secretaries of revenue, cooperation and agriculture departments, the commissioner of the cooperative department, the Sangareddy district collector and directed them to file counter-affidavits.

The judge issued the directions while hearing a petition filed by society member Krishnamurthy and others, seeking an inquiry into alleged corruption by revenue officials. The petitioners contended that after its formation in 1980, the society had purchased about 1,286 acres of land in Tellapur, Kollur, Patancheru and Ameenpur for allotment to members.

It was alleged that after revenue officials assumed control of the society from 2006, large-scale irregularities and encroachments had occurred. The petitioners alleged that due to the litigations over the properties, about 5,000 industrial workers to whom the plots were allotted not able to construct houses. Taking advantage of the litigations, some bigwigs had grabbed the society land. They requested a direction for a comprehensive probe, including a CBI inquiry.

Telangana HC Issues Notice on Plea Seeking Recovery of ₹42 Crore from Chiranjeevi Movie Makers

The Telangana High Court on Friday issued notice to the state government in a petition which sought recovery of Rs 42 crore which it said the makers of the Chiranjeevi-starrer ‘Mana Shankar Vara Prasad Garu’ had earned due to the hike in ticket prices. The court also instructed GST officials to submit relevant data and adjourned the matter to February 3.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing a petition filed by advocate Paduri Srinivas Reddy, who challenged a memo issued by the principal secretary, home, on January 8, which permitted special shows and enhanced ticket prices for the film.

The petitioner contended that allowing ticket prices up to Rs 600, including GST, for special shows and permitting increases of Rs 50 in single-screen theatres and `100 in multiplexes for a week was illegal. The petitioner claimed that the Rs 42 crore generated through the revised pricing was unlawful and liable to be recovered. He sought directions to recover the amount from the production houses and others to deposit the state’s Consolidated Fund.

Telangana HC Pulls Up Ranganath for Visiting Dispute Site While Contempt Case is Pending

The Telangana High Court on Friday expressed serious displeasure over the conduct of HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath in attending Sankranti festivities at Bathukammakunta in Amberpet while contempt proceedings against him were pending with regard to the lake rejuvenation works.

The commissioner is accused of allegedly violating earlier injunction orders of the court by undertaking restoration works at Bathukammakunta. He had appeared before the High Court on December 5, 2025, in response to the alleged violations and had tendered an unconditional apology.

Despite the pendency of the contempt case, the commissioner attended a meeting organised at the restored lake on the eve of Sankranti and addressed the gathering. Speaking at the event, he reportedly said further development of the area would be taken up, including the establishment of a gymnasium, construction of washrooms and other facilities.

Taking strong exception to this, a division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao questioned how an alleged contemnor could visit a site that was sub judice and make public statements as though he had complete authority. The bench observed that when it had not been decided whether the commissioner should be prosecuted or punished in the contempt, he had proceeded to hold a meeting and make assurances regarding future development works.

The court also raised concerns over what it described as the commissioner attracting media attention in relation to a matter pending before it. Turning towards special government counsel Swaroop Orilla, the bench remarked: “Can we (judges) or either of us hold a newspaper interview and inform what is going in the case?”

The bench advised special counsel to convey the court’s concerns to the HYDRAA commissioner. “You can play to the gallery, you can play to the public,” the court said, “but not where the court is concerned.”

Prima facie, the bench took note of the contents of the commissioner’s speech at the event and directed electronic evidence relating to it be taken on record. The court observed that the statements were a matter of concern, particularly as the commissioner was fully aware of the ongoing contempt proceedings and had earlier tendered an unconditional apology.

Acceding to repeated requests made by the special government counsel, the bench granted time till January 30 to the commissioner to file a detailed counter affidavit and adjourned the matter to February 6 for further hearing.