Bhoodan land issue: Telangana High Court refuses to interfere with interim order

The Division Bench was hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by senior IAS and IPS officers and their family members, challenging the interim order

Hyderabad: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with an interim order passed by a Single Judge directing that certain lands in Nagaram village, Maheshwaram Mandal, be classified as prohibited properties on the ground that they are Bhoodan lands.

The Division Bench was hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by senior IAS and IPS officers and their family members, challenging the interim order dated April 24, passed by Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, which stayed all transactions relating to Survey Numbers 181, 182, 194, and 195 of Nagaram village and directed that the lands be entered into the prohibited list.

---

The writ petition was originally filed by Birla Mallesh, a resident of Ameerpet village in the same mandal, who alleged that senior officials from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana had illegally acquired Bhoodan lands by tampering with revenue records and executing sale deeds with the help of revenue and registration officials.

Senior Counsels S. Niranjan Reddy and Desai Prakash Reddy, appearing for the appellants, contended that the lands were lawfully acquired through registered sale deeds, and the properties referred to in Survey Nos. 180 and 182 were unrelated to those in Survey Nos. 194 and 195, claiming they fell under different village limits. They further submitted that the Single Judge issued the interim order ex parte, without notice to the respondents, and made presumptive observations about possible abuse of official status.

It was argued that the interim directions went beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petition, which merely requested an inquiry and appropriate action, not a directive to place the lands in the prohibited list. The appellants maintained that the matter involved a disputed question of title, best left to be resolved in a civil court, rather than through writ proceedings.

However, the Division Bench declined to intervene, observing that the order under challenge was interim in nature, and clarified that the appellants could pursue appropriate remedies by filing counter affidavits and vacate stay petitions before the Single Judge.

The Bench made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and accordingly closed the writ appeals, leaving all issues open for adjudication in the pending writ proceedings.