The Telangana High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a group of senior IAS and IPS officers involved in a land dispute concerning Bhoodan (donated) lands in Nagaram village, Maheshwaram mandal, Rangareddy district. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara upheld the interim order of a single judge, which directed the state government to list the disputed land parcels as “prohibited properties,” thereby halting any further transactions.
The matter stems from three writ appeals filed by the officials and their family members challenging the single-judge order dated April 24, 2025. The officials claimed they had purchased private patta land—not Bhoodan land as alleged—and argued that the relief granted went beyond the scope of the original petition.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Birla Mallesh, who alleged that the survey numbers 181, 182, 194, and 195 were part of the Bhoodan Board’s landholdings and had been involved in benami transactions allegedly facilitated by officials in the revenue and registration departments.
Despite strong arguments from senior advocates Desai Prakash Reddy and S. Niranjan Reddy, who represented the appellants, the division bench declined to interfere. The court advised the appellants to file an application before the single judge seeking to vacate the interim order, reiterating that the order was ex parte and not a final ruling on the merits of the case.
The list of appellants includes senior IPS officers Ravi Gupta, Mahesh Muralidhar Bhagwat, Sowmya Mishra, Swati Lakra, Tarun Joshi, B.K. Rahul Hegde, and others such as Rekha Shroff, Renu Goyal, B. Rahul Reddy, and Veerannagari Gowtham Reddy.
The officers also contended that the interim order had been issued without notice and without offering them a chance to be heard. They further questioned the jurisdiction of the court in passing directions that, according to them, extended beyond the petitioner’s original plea.
Additionally, senior counsel Niranjan Reddy urged the bench to expunge certain remarks made by the single judge, arguing that they conveyed misleading impressions. However, the bench declined this request as well.
With the interim order still in place, the land parcels in question will remain on the prohibited list unless the appellants are able to obtain further relief from the single judge in the coming proceedings.
