LiveLaw Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up : August 24 - August 30, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 139 – 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 144

Nominal Index

Surinder Singh Makhija & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 139

Bogi Balraj & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 140

Mohammed Faiyaz Ali v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 141

ITC Limited v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 142

Yarala Narasimha Reddy & Ors. v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 143

Sandela Charamma v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 144

Judgments/ Orders This Month

Land Acquisition Illegal If Known Owners Are Omitted, Right To Object Under S.5-A Dispensed Without Genuine Urgency: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Surinder Singh Makhija & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 139

The Telangana High Court has set aside land acquisition proceedings for road widening at Liberty Cross Roads, Hyderabad, after finding that the authorities omitted the names of admittedly known co-owners from the acquisition proceedings and invoked the urgency provision under Land Acquisition Act without demonstrating genuine urgency to dispense with their right to object.

For context, Section 4(1) provides for a preliminary notification expressing the Government's intention to acquire land for a public purpose. Section 5-A gives interested persons the right to object and be heard.Section 17 deals with urgent acquisitions: Section 17(1) permits possession before an award in cases of urgency, while Section 17(4) separately empowers the Government to dispense with the Section 5-A enquiry where the urgency provisions apply.

Extension Of Land Acquisition Timeline Should Also Extend Landowners' Time To File Objections: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Bogi Balraj & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 140

The Telangana High Court has held that when authorities extend the timeline for land acquisition proceedings, the timeline available to landowners to file objections must also run parallel with the extended period. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 140]

The Court said that an extension of the acquisition proceedings cannot extinguish the landowners' right to object.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar made the observation while setting aside a final award, insofar as nine landowners were concerned, for acquisition of their lands for infrastructural development around the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.

Telangana High Court Directs Forest Officials Not To Interfere With Mosque, Madrasa At Ananthagiri Hills Without Due Process

Case Title: Mohammed Faiyaz Ali v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 141

The Telangana High Court has directed Forest Department officials not to interfere with the peaceful possession, administration and management of a mosque and madrasa situated at Ananthagiri Hills in Vikarabad District without following due process of law.

The Court, however, clarified that its order cannot be used to encroach upon any Reserve Forest area and the forest officials can take appropriate action in case of any encroachment on such land.

Justice Surepalli Nanda passed the order after taking note of the Forest Department's specific stand that its officials had neither interfered with the lawful possession or religious activities of the institution nor attempted to dispossess its Mutawalli.

S.126 Electricity Act Can't Be Invoked For Every Regulatory Violation; 'Unauthorised Use' Must First Be Established: Telangana High Court

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 142

The Telangana High Court has held that proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be initiated merely because the use of electricity allegedly violates other provisions of the Act or applicable regulations.

The distribution licensee must independently establish that the alleged conduct falls within the statutory expression “unauthorised use of electricity”, the court said.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka made the observation while setting aside a provisional assessment of ₹81.18 lakh against ITC Limited for electricity generated by its captive power plants and used by its contractor for construction of ITC's own expansion project within its factory premises. The Court found that the power distribution company had failed to establish the jurisdictional foundation necessary to invoke Section 126.

Hyderabad Master Plan Can't Override Landowners' Right To Compensation Before Dispossession: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Yarala Narasimha Reddy & Ors. v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 143

The Telangana High Court has directed the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to follow due process before taking portions of private plots affected by a road Master Plan.

The Court directed the authorities to survey and demarcate the affected portions after notice to the landowners and determine their entitlement to compensation in accordance with law.

Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao passed the order on a petition by owners of five plots in Khanamet Village, who complained that their structures and compound walls had been demolished for widening an existing 30-feet internal road to an 80/120-feet road under the Master Plan.

Telangana High Court Upholds Penalty On Life Convict Who Jumped Parole For 40-Yrs, Became Govt Teacher, Received 'Best Teacher Award'

Case Title: Sandela Charamma v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 144

The Telangana High Court has refused to interfere with the punishment imposed on a life convict who failed to surrender after his parole expired in 1984 and remained outside prison for over 40 years during which he secured a government teaching job, served until retirement and even received a Best Teacher Award.

Justice Tangirala Madhavi Devi held that the convict had intentionally evaded arrest and had obtained the government job by deception without disclosing his conviction. The Court upheld the forfeiture of his entire earned remission of approximately 27 days and denial of parole and furlough for three years. It also directed the State to create a mechanism to ensure that prisoners released on parole are tracked and return to prison when their parole expires.