The Telangana High Court on Wednesday pulled up the State government for deploying a large police force and allowing ruling party legislators to enter private land belonging to PCR Infra in Siddipet district.
Published Date – 24 September 2026, 12:10 AM
By Our Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday questioned the State authorities over the need for deploying a large police force and the alleged entry of ruling Congress party MLAs, MLCs and other public representatives into a private property belonging to PCR Infra.
The Court also questioned why the authorities had intervened in respect of one particular property on the pretext of verifying the status of assigned lands in Survey No. 271 of Velikatta Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District. The Judge sharply criticised the State’s high-handed approach towards the company and observed the political involvement in the matter.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by M/s PCR Infra concerning 6,050 square yards of land in Survey Nos. 271/98 and 271/98/1 at Velikatta village, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet district.
Senior counsel J. Ramachandra Rao appearing for the petitioner alleged that three thousand police personnel, accompanied by several MLAs and public representatives, entered the property on September 18 and attempted to dispossess the petitioner. It was further alleged that the persons who entered the property stated that the land would be placed in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and would thereafter be distributed to others.
During the hearing, the Court sought an explanation from the Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy on the circumstances that led to the deployment of 3000 police personnel at the property. The Judge questioned why such a large police presence was required and asked whether any other event had taken place which warranted deployment of such a force. The Advocate General clarified that the deployment was not of the magnitude suggested by the petitioner and stated that around 45 to 50 police personnel had been present.
The Court also questioned the authorities’ action in relation to the original assignment of the land. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the land had originally been allotted to an ex-serviceman, Satyanarayana, of Velikatta village, as part of the Government’s assignment of lands to eligible beneficiaries.
The Judge sought an explanation on the presence of ruling party MLAs, MLCs and other public representatives at the property. Justice Shravan Kumar observed that notices had been issued to the original assignee, but questioned why no notice had been issued to the present purchasers or persons presently claiming an interest in the property.
“If you are reopening an issue after 31 years, how can you do it without putting the present affected parties on notice?” the Court questioned, while insisting that the authorities follow the due process of law.
The Court further questioned the State on the manner in which the verification exercise was undertaken in Survey No. 271, which comprises substantial extent of land stated to have been assigned to landless poor persons.
“If there are several assignees, how many of them have you issued notice and verified the status? Why have you verified only one person?” the Court asked.
The Advocate General, A Sudarshan Reddy representing the State, submitted that, the subject assignment land is not covered under the exemption for sale and that the State does not recognise the transaction on such assigned land.
Questioning why state has woken up after three decades and asking how many such litigations can arise in the State, the Judge sought to know what action had been taken against officials who had permitted or entertained initial sale and subsequent transactions relating to the property, particularly if the authorities were now questioning the validity of those transactions.
When multiple transactions were entertained for years by the government, people would purchase land under Bonafide intention, opening litigation on such lands which were accepted by the government for decades would lead to endless litigation in the State, the judge remarked.
The Court questioned the State’s decision to proceed against the present occupants and purchasers without examining the role of the officials who had facilitated or processed the transactions over the years.
The petitioner contended that the entry of the MLAs and MPs along with the police force into the property amounted to interference and trespass and that the authorities could not resort to such measures for taking possession of private property.
The Court made it clear that any action concerning the property, including dispossession, could only be undertaken in accordance with law and after following the procedure prescribed by law.
