Telangana High Court Dismisses Plea for 7-Acre Malkajgiri Land, Imposes ₹50,000 Fine on Petitioners
The court held that the petitioners had no legal right to reclaim ownership after the property had been transferred through registered general power of attorney (GPA) holders and developed into an approved residential layout.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sardar Shanta Bai and two others seeking mutation of revenue records in their favour for 7.28 acres of land in Survey No. 16/1 at Ammuguda in Malkajgiri mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The court held that the petitioners had no legal right to reclaim ownership after the property had been transferred through registered general power of attorney (GPA) holders and developed into an approved residential layout.
Justice E.V. Venugopal, while rejecting the challenge to the tahsildar's endorsement dated November 12, 2020, observed that the petition was devoid of merit and amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. The court imposed costs of `50,000 on the petitioners for wasting judicial time and directed them to deposit the amount with the Telangana High Court Advocates' Welfare Association within two months. The receipt of payment is to be submitted before the Registrar (Judicial-I).
The petitioners contended that the land originally belonged to late R. Sardar Patel, who had purchased it under an unregistered sale deed in 1985, which was later regularised. They sought mutation of the revenue records through a MeeSeva application filed in 2016 and argued that the authorities had failed to provide copies of the approved layout despite repeated requests under the Right to Information Act. They claimed that the government's actions violated their constitutional rights.
Opposing the petition, the revenue department submitted that the petitioners and others had executed a registered GPA in 1985, followed by another registered GPA in 1993, authorising the transfer and development of the property. Acting through the GPA holders, the land was converted into an approved residential layout. Of the total extent, 6.18 acres were sold as residential plots while the remaining 1.1 acres were earmarked as open space under the sanctioned layout.
The state informed the court that the open spacd has been maintained by the GHMC as a football ground under a layout approved by the erstwhile Kapra municipality in 2002. Revenue authorities also maintained that the land was recorded as government property and that the petitioners possessed neither assignment rights nor any legally enforceable claim over it.
After examining the records, Justice Venugopal held that the petitioners could not seek mutation of the land after it had been conveyed through their own GPA holders and developed into a residential layout. The court observed that the petitioners had repeatedly approached revenue authorities and invoked the writ jurisdiction despite lacking any subsisting legal interest in the property.
Telangana High Court Questions Prison Department's Silence Over Undertrial's Custodial Suicide
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Friday expressed serious concern over the prisons department's reluctance to order an independent inquiry into allegations that an undertrial prisoner was subjected to custodial humiliation before dying by suicide at the Jangaon sub-jail. Observing that authorities should have welcomed an inquiry if they had committed no wrongdoing, the court directed the state government and officials of the prisons and the police departments to file their counter-affidavits and adjourned the matter to July 28.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi was hearing a writ petition filed by Varala Hima of Singarajupalli in Devaruppula mandal of Jangaon district, who alleged that her husband Varala Mallaiah died by suicide after being subjected to degrading treatment while in judicial custody. She sought a detailed investigation into his death and compensation of `50 lakh for the alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate V. Raghunath submitted that Mallaiah, an undertrial prisoner, was allegedly forced to clean toilets and scrub prison floors at the jail, leading to extreme humiliation and ultimately driving him to end his life. He contended that despite a representation submitted by the petitioner on November 13, 2025, the inspector-general of prisons, the superintendent of police, Jangaon, and other authorities failed to initiate action against the officials responsible.
Counsel argued that although a magisterial inquiry was reportedly conducted after the death, the petitioner's family was neither informed nor given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He sought criminal action against the officials concerned, an independent investigation into the alleged custodial harassment and compensation for the bereaved family.
During the hearing, Justice Madhavi Devi observed that Mallaiah was an undertrial and not a convicted inmate serving a sentence, and questioned why he was allegedly made to perform menial tasks inside the prison. The court noted that while the magisterial inquiry would examine the cause of death, it would not necessarily address the allegations of harassment raised by the deceased's wife.
Questioning the stand of the prisons department, the judge asked why it had not initiated its own inquiry into the allegations and why there was an objection to an investigation by the inspector-general of prisons.
The court also voiced concern over the conditions prevailing in prisons across the state, observing that the incident warranted closer scrutiny to ensure similar tragedies did not recur. Justice Madhavi Devi remarked that while one person had lost his life in the present case, steps must be taken to prevent such incidents in future and observed that an inquiry into prison conditions may also become necessary.
When government counsel informed the court that the police were investigating the death and that a chargesheet would be filed upon completion of the probe, the court asked whether the investigation would also address the allegations of custodial humiliation. Government counsel suggested that the court could direct a senior police officer, such as the deputy commissioner of police or commissioner of police, to conduct the inquiry instead of the IGP. Taking exception to the suggestion, the court observed that excessive resistance to an inquiry only raised further questions.
The writ petition also sought a declaration that the failure of the prison and police authorities to act on the petitioner's complaint and to initiate criminal proceedings against the officials concerned was illegal, arbitrary besides being contrary to the applicable prison rules.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court issued notices to the principal secretary of the state government, IGP, the Director General of Police, the superintendent of police, Jangaon, the Jangaon police station house officer, the superintendent of Jangaon sub-jail and the jail superintendent concerned, directing them to file their counter-affidavits along with all relevant reports.
