WP/325/2026 of Chandra Mohan Reddy Somi Reddy Vs Union of India on 13 July 2026

1. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govemment of lndia Ministry of Home affairs, New Delhi.

2. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Government of lndia Ministry of State Home Affairs, New Delhi.

3. Central Bureau of lnvestigation, Rep. by its Joint Director kedirysadhan, koti. Hyderabad.

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Departments, Secretariat Hyderabad.

6. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana.

7. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate

8. The Director General anti-Corruption Bureau, State of Telangana.

9. The District Forest Officer (DFO) for Ranga Reddy, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

10. The Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRA), Rep. by its Commissioner. 1 1 . The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (HMDA), Rep. by its Commissioner, Swarna Kranthi Bhavan, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

12. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner / (Previously Turkayamjal Municipality) Thorrur Division, Shamshabad Zone,

13. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Kongarakalam, Ranga Reddy District.

14. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet District. Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy

15. The Mandal Reddy District Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga 1 6. The Revenue lnspector, Abdullapurmet Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. 1 7. The Grama Palana Officer (GPO), lnjapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal,

1 8. Apple Avenue Venture, Represented by its Director O/o Chandra Moula Nagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

19. Gundlapally Dhanraj Goud, S/o Jangamaiah Aged about. 57 years Occ. EX MPP abdullapurment l\zlandal, Rl/o Plot No 7 and 8 near Gowtham Model School, Hasthinapuram, Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District.

20. Gundlapally Haritha, W/o Dhanraj Goud Aged about. 55 years Occ. EX Vice chairman Turkyamjal Municipality, R/o Plot No 7 and 8 near Gowtham Model School, Hasthinapuram, Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District.

21. Gundlapally Muralidhar Goud, S/o Jangamaiah Aged about. 52 years Occ. Real-estate business RJo lnjapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal at lnjapur,

22. Amarendar Reddy, S/o Not Known Aged about 62 years, Occ. Former Municipal Commissroner Turkyamjal, R/o Sadasiva Heavens, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

23. Dinesh, S/o Not known Aged about 35 years, Occ. Town Planning Officer Turkyamjal Municipality, 0/o Turkyamjal Municipality, At Manneyguda, Ranga Reddy District.

24. Sudharshan Reddy, S/o Not Known Aged about 48 years, Occ. Tahsildar Abdullapurnient Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District.

25. Supriya, D/o Not Known Aged about 40 years, Occ. Grama Palana Officer (cPO), R/o lnjapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal at lnjapur, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 0911212025 and not conducting a comprehensive, independent, and impartial investigation into the large-scale illegal encroachment, land grabbing, fraudulent alteration of official records, manipulation of layout approvals, abuse of official position, and criminal conspiracy relating to Government land in Survey No.126 of lnjapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, involving public servants, political leaders, private developers, and all other persons responsible, and to take action in accordance with law and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, consequently to direct the Respondents to consider the said representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law. LA. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 09t1212O25 and a comprehensive, independent, and impartial investigation through a Central Agency i Joint Task Force into the large-scale illegal encroachment, land grabbing, record manipulation, abuse of official position, and criminal conspiracy relating to Government land in Survey No.126 and further direct eviction of encroachers, cancellation of illegal permissions, and initiation of criminal and departmental proceedings against all persons responsible, Pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.SANTOSH KUMAR . assisted by SRI NARAPARAJU YASHWANTH counser ror the Respondent No'1&2 : .tti,l;.??E11}r?l*t"o;," Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA, SPL.PP FOR CBI Counsel for the Respondent No.4,5,12&13 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6TOB : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent No.10 : SRI R.SAMEER AHMED, SC FOR HYDRAA Counsel for the Respondent No.11 : SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.12 : SRI K.LAXMAIAH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No.13TO16 : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.'t 7to25 : The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF WDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESII BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITIONNo.3,25 0F 20/26

13. o7.20.26 Betseen: Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy Sorni Reddy And Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Governrnent of lndia, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & others Respondents

ORDER:

The present Writ petition is filed seeking a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to consicler the representation dated Og.12.2025 of petitioner pertaining to encroachments in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village of Abdullapurmet Mandai' Ranga

2. The grievance of petitioner is that though it is brought to the notice of the of{icial respondents about the illegal occupation and sale of government land in Survey No 126 of Injapur Village, non-protection of valuabie government land' large scale encroachments and illegal gratifrcation for the Petitioner ') purpose of allowing such violations, Respondents have not taken an]' action regarding the same.

2. L . Petitioner states that he is the owner and peaceful possessor of I'lot Nos. 3O and 31, admeasuring a total extent of 358 square yards in Survey Nos.117 and 1 t8 of lnjapur Village, Abdullapurmel Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to petitioner, on the western side of his plots, an extent of Acs.74.00 of land rs situated in Sy.No.126 and Writ Petition No. 35783 of 2025 r,r,as filed by him seeking redressal of his indir.idual grievance concerning his plots.

2.2. It is categorically averred that there a.re large scale encroachments in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village, with the collusion of the official respondents and polltical leaders. Respondents No. 1,,1 Tahsildar, Respondent No. 12 - the then Municipal Commissioner of Turkayamjal Municipality and Respondent No. 17 Grama Palana Officer have been actively promoting rhe illegality. The case of petitioner is that there are several illegalities that have happened and have been happening in respect of the land in Survey No. 126 namely fraudulent alteration o[ lavout records, deletion of original Gram Panchayat approved layout plans, removal of park and open space designations from ofhcial records and malipulation of land docume nts.

2.3. It is also averred that illegal activities are allegedly being carried out with the involvement and support of official respondent 4 to 17 along with the active protection of local political leaders and their close associates and illegal building permissions were granted and construction activities are continuing, causing a huge Ioss to the government exchequer'

3. When Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, notice was ord.ered and the official respondents have been represented by their respective counsel. However, when the seriousness of the allegations made are pointed out, they made submissions borne out of written instructions / counter afhdavits to the effect that no complaints have been received by them concerning Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village, therefore they remained silent and did not take any action.

4. The Writ Petition has undergone several adjournments on the request made by learned counsel appearing for respondents more particularly, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and when the counter affidavit of Respondents 1 3 to 16 was not forthcoming, a conditional order u'as passed of appearance of the Secretary, Revenue in the event counter-trffi<iavit is not filed by 09.O4.2026. Consequent to the said order, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Respondent No.13) fikd counter. Respondents L4 to 17 have not hled any counter, though serious allegations are made against them.

5. In the counter hled by Respondent No. 13, it is averred that Revcnue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Division and Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal were directed to conduct detailed enquiry and submit report on the represcntation of petitioners. The reports submitted by them are not placed on record along u,ith counter. However, it is averred in the counter at para 3 that total extent of land in Survev No. 726 of Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is Acs.74-16 gts. and is recorded as "Sarkari". As per village map, the land bearing Survey No.126 rs notihed as ".lilavarkhan (lheruvn" and the rights and title eLre absolutely vested rvith thc government.

5.1. In paragraph 5, respondents have furnished certain particulars purportt:dl1. based on the survey conducted by the field staff of the Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal. A perusal of the table annexed thereto discloses that, except for the canal area shown at S1. No.1 1 admeasuring Ac.1- 12 guntas, the entire remaining extent is shown as being under the occupation of various entities. However, the counter- aifidavit is conspicuously silent regarding the source' mode, date and authority under which such occupations came into existence' At

51. No. 1, Acs.22-OO is shown as occupied by HUDA' No particulars whatsoever have been furnished regarding alienation, transfer, allotment, or any government proceedings under which the said land came to be occupied by HUDA'

5.2. Likewise, in respect of S1. Nos. 2 to 7 , lands are shown as occupied by a. Sub-Station, Indiramma Colony Houses, Graveyards, Temples, Z.P. Roads and other Roads, and 2-BHK Houses, however, no details are forthcoming regarding any assignment, such occupation transfer or other In respect of Sl. is mentioned, lawful authoritY enabling No.8, existence of a Gouda but no details of anY Sangam Building government alienation, allotment or permission in favour of the said Building have been disclosed. Similarly, at Sl' No'9, existence of a Dhobi Ghat is noted' However, the counter does not disclose any particulars regarding the authority under which the said land has been util2ed for such purpose' In

respect of 51. No.1O, Acs.7 25 guntas is describecl as "Open Area (Agriculture) . The counter does not dist:lose the identity of person or persons cultivating the said lancl, nor does it specifu narure of their possession, source of lheir right, or the authority under u'hich such cultivation is being c:rrrled on. Sl. No.12 pertains to an admitted encroachment covr:red by a compound rvzrll in an extent of Ac.1-19 guntas. Similarly, Sl. Nos.13, 14 ancl 15 are described as comprising godorvns, cxisting sheds, existing houses and a water body. Howr:ver, no particulars regarding ownership, possession, alienation, or aur.thorization for such occupa[ion have been furnished.

5.3. At S1. No.16, Ac.0-03 guntas is alleged to be an encroachment bv petitioner; at S1. No.17, Ac.1-13 guntas is shor'r'n as "Apple Avenue (Part Area of Apartment)". At S1. No.18, Ac. i-36 guntas is shown as comprising alleged encroachments in the form of Reddv Bhavanam, Temple, Houscs, and Open Plots. At Sl. No.19, existing houses are sho'an in Survey No.12612 admcasuring Acs.3 01 guntas. ALI these particulars shorvn uide Sl.Nos.1 to 19 are classified as Survey Nos. 126/ 1/P and 12612. The Sub Division particulars of Sv.No. 126 have not been mentiont'd. L-rstcad of furnishing complet,: particulars regarding the large-scale occupations and encroachments reflected even in the table annexed to counter of the District Collector, respondents have chosen to divert attention from the core issue. The counter rather than expiaining the legal basis for the occupation of vast extents of government land by various entities and individuals, proceeds to make allegations against petitioner.

5.4. A reading of paragraphs 6 to 12 of the counter demonstrates that respondents have concentrated almost exclusively on the alleged encroachment said to have been made by petitioner. The fundamental issue said averments do not answer the raised in the Writ Petition, namely, the unauthorized occupation and utilization of substantial extents of land comprised in Survey No. 126' Respondents have failed to disclose the particulars of alienation, allotment, assignment' regularization, or any lawful authority in favour of the numerous entities shown to be in occupation of the subject land. Instead, an undue emphasis has been placed upon the alleged encroachment by petitioner'

5.5. The approach adopted in the counter clearly reflects an attempt to vilify Petitioner and deflect attention from the larger issue of unauthorized occupatrons and encroachments rer:orded by the Respondents themselves. Such an approach ncither addresses the grievances raised in the ll'rit Petition nor justifies rhe inaction of the authorities in dealing with the extensive occupations reflected in their ou,n records.

6. Petitioner filcd reply to the said counter, specifically responding to the allegations made therein. He has categorically averred that, insofar as the dispute relating to his own land is concerned, he is independently pursuing his rcmedies bcfore this Court through separate Writ Petitions. It is his specific case that the lands claimed by him are situatecl in Survey Nos.117 and 118 ol Injapur Village.

7. Hcard Sri A. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel assisted bv Sri Naraparaju NSVLN Yashwanth, learned counsel for petitioncr, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicrtor Gencral for Respondents 1 and 2, Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, learned (]overnment Pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf ol Respondent No.6, learned Governmcnt Pleacler lbr Forests on behalf oI Respondent No.9, learrted Ciovernment Pleader for Assrgnment on behalf of

Respondents 13 to 16, Sri V' Narasimha Goud' learned Standing Counsel for HMDA on behalf of Respondent No 11' Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, Sri R. Sameer Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No.10 and Sri K. Laxmaiah, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.12.

8. On a perusal of the material on record' it is apparent that Respondents 4 to 17 are shielding the encroachers of valuable government land in Survey No'126 of Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' As per the counter of the District Collector' the entire land in SurveyNo.126toanextentofAcs.T4-l6gts.,InjapurVillage' Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District absolutely vests with the government. The Coliector is the Revenue Head of the District and is bound to protect the government lands and is also required to take action administrativeiy for any act of his subordinates for any dereliction of dury in respect of protection of government lands. Any lapse in this regard leads to heaqr loss of exchequer to the State such a loss entails a direct bearing on the people of the State lt is also mentioned in the counter, as per the village map of Injapur Village' Survey No' 126

l0 is notified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu meaning thereby that there is a water bod17, rvhich has been encroached. However, the counter mcrely mentions the ground position existirrg as on date of [rling of the counter but evades the more important questions as to hou'the lancl has been encroached and who is responsible for the same. The counter affidavit does not whisper about any enquiry ir-r t his regard. Instead, it focuses on the alleged encroachments rnade by petitioner. Petitioner has filed a reply to thc counte r filed by the Collector (R 13) along with photographs shou,ing the geo coordinates of the various encroachments. Respondents havc not rcplied to the averment made by petitioner and documents in nature of photographs substantiating t he same. Therefore, it is to be treated that respondenl s have chosen to remain silent of those aspects.

9. It is also to be seen that form the date of hling of Writ Petition, it is to be perceived by the court that ofhcial Respondents 4 to 1(r have tried to dodge the n-ratter on one pretext or the oLher. The counter of the District Collector has been hled onh' aftr:r a conditional order of appearance of the Principal Secretary, Revenue lr.as made. The subrnissions made by the counsel fcrr the other official responcients namely ll Respondents 6 to 12 also do not inspire confidence' The tenor of the said submissions is a stoic silence apparently willful blindness to the large scale encroachments as apparent from the counter hled by the District Collector'

10. The District Collector, in all fairness, is under a duty and responsibility towards the Court to lay all facts before the Court including action that has been taken against all the concerned for the encroachments in government land in Survey No.126 of Injapur Village, instead, the District Collector appears to have targeted towards petitioner' The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the State machinery is actively aiding the encroachment of government land at the cost of the government exchequer. The Court cannot be blind and a mute spectator to such a massive encroachment at the cost of public exchequer and blatant and willful attempt of Respondents 4 to 17 to keep the Court in dark and permit the encroachments to continue unabated' The Court has ample powers under Article 226 to enfotce the rule of law by issuing appropriate directions.

11. Respondent No 3 in the counter stated that CBI is mandated to conduct any investigations as directed by the t2 Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Coun and the same must be ordered sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, such as to instill conltdence in the investigation, where thc matter has national or international ramifications, or where it is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. It is also stated that indiscriminate directions u'ould ovcrburden the CBI, dilute its effectives and undermine its credibility. 1,2. Being conscious of the por,r,er of the Court to order an inve stigation b1' the CBI, it is to be see n whettrer the present case rl'arrants investigation by the CBI into the iarge scale encroachments ol an extent of Acs.74-16 gts in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disrrict. Normally, the Court would be slow to order an investigation by the CBI and conscious of the fzrcts of limited resources so as not to burden the same. Hou,ever, the present facls narrate and indicate active collusion by the Revenue Authorities and have miserably faiied in protectir-rg the landed resources o1' the government. On the one hand, the State has lost massive exchequer and on the other, the persons responsible for such encroachments have bcen enriched bv an l3 illegal act. Such brazen acts have to be nipped in the bud and are to be dealt with seriously. It is apparent from the conduct of Respondents 13 to 17 that they are intentionally blind to the powers exercisable by the Court and seemed to convey that they can get away in spite of being responsible for the encroachments being done right under their nose' It is apparent that the stoic silence is only to allow the encroachments to continue.

13. Therefore, in order to ascertain the truth and l-rx responsibiliry for the 1egal encroachments, this Court, being conscious of the difhculty expressed by Respondent No'3 and with a view to upholding the rule of 1aw and ensuring accountability of all the persons responsible, including public officia1s, who may have actively facilitated or connived in such encroachments, deemed it appropriate to direct a comprehensive enquiry.

1.4. Accordingly, Respondent No 6 - Director General of Police is directed to entrust the matter to the Crime Branch- Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) for conducting a thorough enquiry into the involvement of ali the officials concerned and private individuals in relation to encroachment 1+ of lancl rn Survev No. 126 of Injapur Villagt' and lo complete the enquiry u.ithin threc months from the date of reccipt of a copy of the order 14 .1 . Furthe r, the Principal Secre tary, Revenue Department is directed Lo take immediatr: action against the persons responsible for not taking actior, to prevent encroachments in Sur-vey No. 126, more particula.rly the officers at Mandal level i e. Tahsildar (Respondent No. 14) ancl the Grama Palana Officer (Respondent No. I7), rvho are the hrst level Government Servants endo\i.ed rr'ith the responsibllity to prevent and rccovcr the encroachecl land and file a comprehcnsiv(, rcport before this Court witl-rin lour weeks from todaJ..

15. The Writ Petition is disposed ol in the above terrns. No r:osts. Consequentlv, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if anl', shatl stand closed. SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR D \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Secretary to Government of lndia' Union of lndia' Ministry of Home affairs. New Delhi

2. The Secretary to Government of lndia Ministry of State Home Affairs'Union of lndia, New Delhi.

3. The Joint Director, Central Bureau of lnvestigation' kedirysadhan' koti' Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana' Revenue Department Secretariat' HYderabad'

5. The Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Departments, Secretariat Hyderabad.

6. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana.

7. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate. B. The Director General anti-Corruption Bureau, State of Telangana.

9. The District Forest Officer (DFO) for Ranga Reddy, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad' Hyderabad.

10. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRA). 1 1 . The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (HMDA), Swarna Kranthi Bhavan, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

12. The Commissioner i (Previously Turkayamjal Municipality) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatioh, Thorrur Division, Shamshabad Zone, Ranga Reddy District.

13. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Kongarakalam, Ranga Reddy District.

14. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. . 1 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Abdullapurmet Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, ng

'16.The Revenue lnspector, Abdullapurmet Mandal, at Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. Ra a 1 7. The Grama Palana Officer (GPO), lniapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

18. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU NSVLN YASHWANTH, Advocate. [OPUC]

19. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

20. One CC to SRI K.SRINIVAS, SPL.PP FOR CBl. [OPUC]

21. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

22. fwo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

23. Two CCs to GP FOR FOREST, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

24. One CC to SRI R.SAMEER AHMED, SC FOR HYDRAA. [OPUC]

25. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA. [OPUC]

26. One CC to SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR GHMC. IOPUC] 27 .f wo CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] t-'ff za.t*oCD Copies. J i

HIGH COURT NBK, J DATED: '1310712026

ORDER

WP.No.325 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

x \L )b IH v7 D + oFr ps Y "i q ol{ F