Allowed

Bukka Chakradhari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2026WP/30094/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Respondents' interference in his land possession via a writ petition. Court recorded submissions and disposed of the matter, allowing Respondents to take appropriate legal action without specifying interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Respondent authorities at liberty to take action against Petitioner under Telangana Land Encroachment Act or other statutes.

Bukka Chakradhari Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30094 0F 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bukka Chakradhari, S/o Late B Ramanujam, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 8-3-237141R13, Laxmi Narasimha Nagar, yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500045.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Mekopolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitutlon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A) Declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the open land admeasuring Ac.2-32 guntas situated at Sy. No. 298, Damarlapally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the intention to dispossess and evict the Petitioner, as illegal, arbikary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Articles '14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution, of lndia, B) To direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Pe tioner over open land admeasuring Ac. 2-32 guntas situated at Sy. No. 298, Damarlapally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

t.A. NO:¹ OF 2026

¶20

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the} ' interferin! into the peaclful possession and enioyment of the n".ponO"nt.^from p"ti[on"r. over the open laniadm",t,ting Ac'^{2'32 guntas situatedat Sy No 298'} Oamarfapafry^{Village Shabad Mandal, ianga Reddy District'in the interest of} justice, pending disposal of the^writpetition

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI ROHIT POGULA}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: SRI V' SIDDHARTH GOUD REP' FOR} SRI V, NARSIMHA^{GOUD, SC FOR HMDA}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3 to 5: SRIM' SHAHAS REDDY'}

¶25

ASST. GP FOR^REVENUE

¶26

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶27

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD

¶28

HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIONN0.30094 0F 2026

¶29

(CNR No.HBH CotM22gO2o25)

¶30

Between:

¶31

DATE OF ORDER: tO.Og.2O26

Bukka Chakradhari

AND

. Petitioner

The State of Telangana Represented by its principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departrnent secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶36

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶37

...Respondents

¶38

Heard Mr. Rohit pogula, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V.Siddharth Goud, learned counsel, representing Mr. V.Narsimha Goud, leamed Standing Counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent No.2; Mr. M.Sahas Reddy, Ieamed Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents No.3 to 5, and perused the material on record.

¶39

Learned Standing Couruel for HMDA and learned Assistant Government preader for Revenue submitted that due process of law wilr be followed if any action is to be taken against the petitioner in connection with the land admeasuring Acs.2_32 guntas in Survey No.29g, situated at Damarlapally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dishict.

¶40

¶41

Recording^{the said submissions'this writ petition is disposedof'} Respondent^{authoriliesare at liberty to take action against the petitioner under} the provisions^{of the TelanganaLandEncroachmentAct' 1905 or any other}

¶42

statute.^{Thereshall re no orderas to costs'}

¶43

miscellaneous^{applications'if any' pending in the} As a^{sequei Ihereto'}

¶44

writ petition,^stand ':1osed'

¶45

SD/-P. PONNA^KRISHNA ASSISTANT^RTISTRAR

/,TRUE^COPY/'

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 rhe Princip?l {i""l"liy J:[',"i::l $iilllL{t:i;.;:5 H'irT,ffJ:-; , ll3'ffi:1,:'rl;5ltT;;::5#;^{ffi;'";ud M"t'.opoiit'n Deveropment} ' nuinoritv (HMDA)' HYderabad'

¶50

lffiflff4ffffi#ffiff*tuli-,

¶51

9.^{TWO CCS tO C;P FOR} lourl

¶52

10 Two^{CD CoPte';} BN rS

\qr

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10109t2026

ORDER

WP.No.30094 of 2026

o 'il 1 HES TA
(
PZ
11 sEP 20ffi
Uot
i
* *
t)€s PATC'T

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

r,,{A $!- S"

Bukka Chakradhari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bukka Chakradhari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases