Telangana HC refuses to stay Raidurgam land auction

The Telangana High Court declined to stay the government auction of lands in Raidurgam, Ranga Reddy district, amid a dispute over 11.12 acres. The court directed authorities to file a detailed counter-affidavit and adjourned the hearing to August 27

Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court declined to stay the ongoing government auction of lands situated in Raidurgam of Serilingampally mandal in Ranga Reddy district. The court noted that it would be inappropriate to stall the auction process through interim orders without absolute clarity on the dispute, particularly when no inquiry is currently pending before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT).

The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Ramadevi and others, who alleged that State officials were interfering with their physical possession of 11.12 acres of land in Survey Numbers 83/1 and 83/Part in Raidurgam. The petitioners claimed that authorities were using bulldozers to erase boundary markers and sought an immediate halt to the e-auctions scheduled for the 21st and 28th of this month.

---

Appearing for the State government and the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC), Senior Counsel S. Niranjan Reddy and Additional Advocate General (AAG) Tera Rajanikanth Reddy strongly opposed the plea. They submitted that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that complex disputes regarding title and possession over the 53-acre parcel in Survey Number 83 cannot be adjudicated through writ proceedings under Article 226, which rely merely on affidavits and documents.

The Additional Advocate General asserted that the lands currently being auctioned are government properties entirely free of disputes. They argued that determining whether the petitioners’ claimed 11 acres fall within the disputed 53 acres or the clear government land requires a geographical survey and evidentiary proof. If the petitioners wish to assert their rights based on sale deeds, they must approach a civil court, the counsel stated, urging the Court not to pass any interim orders at this stage.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Counsel J. Ramachandra Rao argued that the apex court had not invalidated their sale deeds, noting that only a Single Judge had made adverse determinations on certain aspects. Pointing to a civil court decree purportedly in their favour, he contended that following the Supreme Court’s verdict on May 7 last year, the matter reverted to the LRT’s jurisdiction for re-examination of title claims and land nature.

He urged the court to stay the auction for at least a week, citing that no bids had been received yet. Unconvinced by the plea for a temporary stay, the bench questioned why the petitioners had not filed an application for a rehearing before the LRT following the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Observing that there was no evidence of any pending proceedings, issued notices, or review processes initiated before the tribunal, the Judge refused to halt the government’s auction. The court directed the respondent authorities to file a detailed counter-affidavit regarding the dispute over the 11-acre land parcel and adjourned the hearing to August 27.