Telangana HC Questions Petitioner’s Locus Standi as Senior IAS, IPS Officers Challenge Writ in Land Dispute Case

Parijat Tripathi
Telangana Government

 

High-Ranking Officers Accuse Petitioner of Malicious Intent, Misrepresentation

In a significant hearing on Monday, the Telangana High Court raised concerns over the legal standing (locus standi) of petitioner Birla Mallesh, in an ongoing dispute related to Survey No. 194 in Nagaram village. The court was responding to Vacate Petitions filed by senior IAS and IPS officers, who are seeking the dismissal of Mallesh’s writ petition, which they claim is driven by malafide intentions.

Senior Officials Question Petitioner’s Credibility

Representing the officers, senior advocates P. Raghuram and Chandrasen Reddy argued that Mallesh’s petition is a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the officials involved. They pointed out that Mallesh’s mother, Birla Jangamma, had previously filed a writ petition concerning the same land in 2024 — a plea that was ultimately dismissed. However, this prior case was not disclosed in Mallesh’s current filing, raising questions about transparency and credibility.

Inconsistent Claims and Suppressed Facts

The counsels further accused the petitioner of withholding key information and shifting his legal stance. Initially, Mallesh had obtained interim relief by presenting the land as “Bhoodan” land — property donated for public benefit. Later, he altered his claim, asserting it was government-owned land, thus contradicting his earlier statements.

The officers’ legal team asserted that these inconsistencies, combined with the omission of crucial facts, indicate a deliberate effort to mislead the court and undermine the reputation of public officials.

Court Denies Extension, Sets Next Hearing

When the petitioner’s counsel sought an additional two weeks to prepare arguments, the court declined, citing the urgency of the matter. The next hearing has been scheduled for July 29.

Broader Implications

This case may prove to be a legal benchmark, particularly concerning the eligibility of petitioners in public interest litigation and the necessity for full disclosure in land disputes — especially those involving government land or land designated for social welfare.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *