Disposed

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2026WP/621/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged rejection of his impleadment application in revenue proceedings regarding a naksha road, alleging non-compliance with an earlier writ direction. The High Court directed the District Collector to issue notices and afford the petitioner opportunity to be heard and establish his claim, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

District Collector directed to issue notices and permit the petitioner's impleadment in LP/2785/2024, affording opportunity to file affidavits; no costs.

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 621 OF 2026

¶9

Betvveen:

¶10

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud. S/o.Yadagirr Goud, Age 46 years Occupation ;Agriculture, R/o. Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatanam [\ilandal,Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, It/lunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector. Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Hyderabad ltletropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Commissioner, Swama Jayanti Complex Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Srinivasa Nagar Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500038.

¶18

M/s IRA Square Townships LLP, Rep by Sri.Konala Ramesh 6-356 Thummaloor Maheshwaram tt/landal. Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

The Additional Collector Local Bodies. Ranga Reddy District, O/o. The lntegrated District Office Complexes Kongarakalam Village lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 501510

¶20

The Commissioner, Adibatla Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

The Commissioner. lbrahimpatnam Municipality, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

Kotha Arthika Praveen Goud, Wo Praveen Goud, Aged 33^years, Occ^-Ex- Chairperson, Adibatla [Iunicipality Presently Ward Member R/o.1-38, Kongaralan Village, lVlandal lbrahimpamam, Ranga Reddy^{Dirstrict -} 501510.

¶23

.,...I?ESPONDENTS

¶24

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 one in the nature of writ of l\4andamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for impalement to the proceedings No.LPl27B5l2O24, pertaining to hearing of the case relating to the Naksha Road in Sy Nos 60 and 61, which is all villages who has land in naksharoad, situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the lands in Sy.Nos,. 32 and 31 of situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, not fallowing as per direction in W.P No. 2771512024 as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural^justice and settled principles of law, consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allow the implead petition filed by the petitioner for impalement of the petitioner as a party to the proceedings No.LP1278512024, pertaining to hearing of the case relating to the Naksha Road in Sy.Nos. 60 and 61, situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶25

l.A.NO:1 OF 2026

¶26

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums,tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to allow the implead petition filed by the petitioner for impalement of the petitioner as a party to the proceedings No.- LP/278512024, pertaining to hearing of the case relating to the Naksha Road in Sy.Nos. 60 & 6.las per direction in W.P.No. 2771512024, situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3,4 &7 : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶29

counsel for the Respondent No.2 : AGp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMII,llsTRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶30

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 10 : -

¶34

The Court made the following ORDER

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

W.P.No.621 of 2026

Date: 0B-01-2026

Retween:

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud

...petltloner

AND

The State of Telalgana, Rep. by its Principal Secretar5r, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and nine others.

¶44

. . . respondents

¶45

ORDER

¶46

This Writ Petition is f,rled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-

¶47

"to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment to the proceedings No.LP 12785 /2024, pertaining to hearing of the case relating to the Naksha Road in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61, which is all villages who has land in naksha road, situated at Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the lands in Sy. Nos. 32 and 31, situated at Kongarakalan Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, not fallowing as per direction in W.P.No. 2771512024 as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and settled

¶48

EVV..' w.P.No.62l of 2026

¶49

¶50

principles of law, consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allow the implead petition filed by the petitioner for impleadment of the petitioner as a party to the proceedings No. LPl27a5l2024, pertaining to hearing of the case relating to the Naksha Road in Sy,Nos- 60 and 61, situated at Kongarakalan Village, tbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass such other orders.-

¶51

Heard Sri Srikarth Sutari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 and Sri Chavali Varun Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Stalding Counsel, appearing for the respondent No.5-Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. Perused thc material available on record.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitiorrer would submit that the petitioner is the or.r,ner of the subject land ared he is having interest in respect of the naksha road existing in Sy. Nos.6O and 61, situated in Kongarakalan 1n village as he is also having access to the naksha road order to approach his pr-operty which is situatecl in Sy. Nos.32 and 32 in Kongarkalan village arrd after having come ta know about the on going proceedings

¶53

EVV.J W.P.No.62l of2026

¶54

No.LPl2785l2O25 before the 3'd respondent, relating^to the sard rtrakshtrc- road, in compliance to the orders of this court in W.P.No.27715 of 2024 dated O3 11-2025, he has also hled application before the 3',i respondent to implead him as a party to the said proceedings to establish his case.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner 1S having pattadar Code passbook bearing No.61025 under Bar No.T050900 11751 in respect of the subject land. He would further submit that the order of this Court in W.P.No.277l5 ol 2024 is quite clear that this Court had directed the respondent authorities to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the said Writ Petition and the respondent No.6 and all other interested persons in the subject matter and the 3.d respondent, without following the saicl direction, rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition is frled seeking appropriate orders.

¶56

¶57

EVV,J W.P.No.6? I of 2026

¶58

karned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶59

Revenue submits that the petitioner could not establish that he is having interest in the naksha raod and the same IS being used by the petitioner for years together for ingress and egress of his agricultural lands and without there being any village map, the petitioner is trying to demonstrate his case before the authority that he is having access to the said naksha road. Hence, his application for impleadment was not considered. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶60

Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon considering the material available on record, this Court, without making any observation on merits and demerits of the case, is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the unofficial respondents, if ar-r opportunity is given to the petitioner for impleading himself as a party to the proceedings which are being conducted by the olficial respondent No.3.

¶61

Therefore, the 3.d respondent is directed to issue notices to the unofficial respondents and ail

¶62

EVV.J W.P.No.62l ot'2026

¶63

¶64

interested^{parties,for impleading the petitioner hereinto} make submissions^{in the on going proceedings in} LPl2785l2O25 as^{per the directions of this courtin} W.P.No.277 15 of^{2024, byaffordingreasonable} opportunity to^{the petitioner to file necessa-ry affrdavit} before the 3'd^{respondent to establishhis claim'Since the} notice was directed^{to be issued tothe unoflicial} respondent Nos.6^{and lO, further serviceof notice is} dispensed with.

¶65

Accordingly, the^{Writ Petition isdisposed of.} There shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶66

9.Asa sequel, the miscellaneous^petitions

¶67

pending, if anY, shall^{stand closed}

¶68

ISD/-C. DEEPIKA S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ I CTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secr at Build ings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶69

The Principal Secretary, Ivlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department. Secretariat Buildings. State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶70

The District Collector. Ranga Reddy District.

¶71

The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶72

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Swama Jayanti Complex Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Srinivasa Nagar Ameerpet Hyderabad 500038

¶73

Sri Konala Ramesh, tM/s IRA Square Townships LLP, 6-356 l-hummaloor Maheshwaram Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶74

The Additional Collector Local Bodies, Ranga Reddy District, O/o. The lntegrated District Office Complexes Kongarakalam Village lbrahimpatnam Mandal Ranga Reddy District 501510.

¶75

The Commissioner, Adibatla Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 9. The Commissioner, lbrahimpatnamtVlunicpality, lbrahimpatnarn, Ranga Reddy District.

¶76

10 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of^-telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶77

11 Two CCs to GP FOR A/UNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND LrrRBAN DEVELOPA/ENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] '12.One CC to SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

13 One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate (OPUC)

¶79

14.One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 15 Two CD Copies

\ty

HIGH COURT

DATED 08t0112026

ORDER

1HE s.-74
(
o
(J
I J )6
o.,
+

WP.No.621 of 2026

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

{
@

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotta Sai Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalla Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

MOHAMIvIAD Younus Vs The State of Telangana

Bhimanaveni Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Rajyam Vs The State of Telangana

Annamuraju Leelavathi Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Natha Vimala Vs The State of Telangana