'State Actively Aiding Encroachers': Telangana High Court Orders Probe Into Alleged Encroachment Of 74 Acre Govt Lake Land

The Telangana High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the alleged large-scale encroachment of over 74 acres of government land classified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu  (notified government water body) in Injapur Village, Ranga Reddy district.

[2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 119]

Holding that the material on record indicated active collusion by revenue authorities and wilful inaction in protecting public land, the Court also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to initiate action against officials responsible for failing to prevent the encroachments.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:

"The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the State machinery is actively aiding the encroachment of government land at the cost of the government exchequer. The Court cannot be blind and a mute spectator to such a massive encroachment at the cost of public exchequer and blatant and willful attempt of Respondents 4 to 17 to keep the Court in dark and permit the encroachments to continue unabated. The Court has ample powers under Article 226 to enforce the rule of law by issuing appropriate directions."

The Court further held:

"The present facts narrate and indicate active collusion by the Revenue Authorities and have miserably failed in protecting the landed resources of the government. On the one hand, the State has lost massive exchequer and on the other, the persons responsible for such encroachments have been enriched by an illegal act. Such brazen acts have to be nipped in the bud and are to be dealt with seriously."

The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to consider his representation alleging illegal occupation and sale of government land in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village. He alleged large-scale encroachments on government land, fraudulent alteration of layout records, deletion of approved Gram Panchayat layout plans, removal of park and open-space designations, manipulation of land records, and grant of illegal building permissions with the collusion of revenue officials and local political leaders.

During the proceedings, the official respondents initially submitted that no complaints regarding Survey No. 126 had been received by them and therefore no action had been taken. The Court noted that despite the seriousness of the allegations, several revenue authorities failed to file counter affidavits, and the District Collector filed a response only after the Court passed a conditional order requiring the appearance of the Principal Secretary, Revenue, if no counter was filed.

The Collector's counter disclosed that Survey No. 126, measuring Acs.74-16 guntas, is recorded as "Sarkari" land and is notified in the village map as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu, with title vesting absolutely in the Government. However, it also revealed that almost the entire extent was under the occupation of various entities, including HUDA, government housing, roads, temples, graveyards, godowns, residential buildings and other structures. The Court found that the counter failed to disclose the legal basis, authority or government orders under which these occupations had come into existence.

The Court observed that instead of explaining how such extensive occupations of government land had occurred, the authorities had concentrated almost entirely on allegations that the petitioner himself had encroached upon a small portion of land. It held that this approach appeared to be an attempt to divert attention from the larger issue of unauthorised occupation of valuable government property.

The petitioner, in reply, clarified that disputes concerning his own plots in Survey Nos. 117 and 118 were already the subject matter of separate proceedings. He also placed photographs with geo-coordinates showing the alleged encroachments. The Court noted that the respondents did not file any reply disputing these averments or the documentary material placed before it.

Recording that the conduct of the revenue authorities reflected "stoic silence" and "wilful blindness" towards the encroachments, the Court held that the Collector, being the head of the revenue administration in the district, was duty-bound to place all relevant facts before the Court and disclose the action taken against officials responsible for protecting government land. Instead, the authorities had failed to explain how government land, including a notified water body, came to be extensively occupied without lawful authority.

Although the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that investigations by it should be directed only sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, the Court held that the facts warranted an independent enquiry. Considering the CBI's limited resources, however, it directed the Director General of Police to entrust the matter to the CBCID for a thorough enquiry into the role of all public officials and private individuals involved in the alleged encroachments. The enquiry has been directed to be completed within three months.

The Court also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to immediately initiate action against officials responsible for failing to prevent the encroachments, particularly the Tahsildar and the Grama Palana Officer, and to file a comprehensive report before the High Court within four weeks. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy Somi Reddy v. Union Bank of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 325 of 2026

Appearance: A. Santosh Kumar, assisted by Naraparaju NSVLN Yashwanth, for the petitioner; N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General, for Respondents 1 and 2; Srinivas Kapatia, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI; Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent No. 4; Government Pleader for Home for Respondent No. 6; Government Pleader for Forests for Respondent No. 9; Government Pleader for Assignment for Respondents 13 to 16; V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA for Respondent No. 11; T. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB; R. Sameer Ahmed for Respondent No. 10; and K. Laxmaiah, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 12.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 119