Telangana HC Orders CBCID Enquiry Into 74-Acre Government Land Grab at Injapur Village, Ranga Reddy
Finding revenue officials complicit in large-scale encroachments on Jilavarkhan Cheruvu land, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed a CBCID probe and action against the Tahsildar and Grama Palana Officer within tight deadlines.
The High Court of Telangana, on 13 July 2026, ordered the Director General of Police to entrust the entire matter of encroachments in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the Crime Branch–Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) for a thorough enquiry. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, sitting singly, found that the revenue machinery had not merely failed to act but had actively shielded encroachers of government land measuring Acs. 74-16 gts., recorded as “Sarkari” and notified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu — a water body — in the village map. The counter filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, itself disclosed widespread occupation of the land by multiple entities, yet provided no legal basis for any of those occupations.
The Dispute Before the Court
Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy Somi Reddy filed Writ Petition No. 325 of 2026 seeking a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 09.12.2025 concerning encroachments in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village. The petitioner is the owner of Plot Nos. 30 and 31, admeasuring 358 square yards in Survey Nos. 117 and 118 of the same village. Survey No. 126, totalling Acs. 74.00, lies on the western side of his plots.
His complaint was specific: large-scale encroachments were being carried out in Survey No. 126 with the active collusion of official respondents and political leaders. He alleged fraudulent alteration of layout records, deletion of original Gram Panchayat-approved layout plans, removal of park and open space designations from official records, manipulation of land documents, and illegal building permissions being granted while construction continued. The then Municipal Commissioner of Turkayamjal Municipality, the Tahsildar of Abdullapurmet Mandal, and the Grama Palana Officer were specifically named as actively promoting the illegality. The petitioner stated that he was separately pursuing his individual land dispute through Writ Petition No. 35783 of 2025.
What the Collector's Counter Revealed—and Concealed
The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, filed a counter only after Justice Bheemapaka passed a conditional order directing the appearance of the Principal Secretary, Revenue if the counter was not filed by 09.04.2026. Respondents 14 to 17 filed no counter at all, despite serious allegations against them.
The Collector's counter confirmed that the total extent of land in Survey No. 126 is Acs. 74-16 gts., recorded as “Sarkari,” and that as per the village map it is notified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu, with rights and title absolutely vested in the government. However, a table annexed to the same counter, purportedly based on a field survey by the Tahsildar's staff, showed that virtually the entire survey number was under occupation — with only the canal area at Sl. No. 11 (Ac. 1-12 guntas) unoccupied.
The court examined each entry in the table. At Sl. No. 1, Acs. 22-00 was shown as occupied by HUDA, with no particulars of alienation, transfer, or allotment. Sl. Nos. 2 to 7 showed a Sub-Station, Indiramma Colony Houses, Graveyards, Temples, Z.P. Roads, and 2-BHK Houses — again without any assignment order or lawful authority. At Sl. No. 8, a Gouda Sangam Building was listed with no government alienation disclosed. Sl. No. 9 showed a Dhobi Ghat, Sl. No. 10 showed Acs. 7-25 guntas as open agricultural land with no details of who was cultivating or under what right, and Sl. No. 12 described an admitted encroachment behind a compound wall of Ac. 1-19 guntas. Sl. Nos. 13 to 15 covered godowns, sheds, houses, and a water body, again without ownership or authorisation details. Sl. No. 17 showed Ac. 1-13 guntas as “Apple Avenue (Part Area of Apartment)” and Sl. No. 18 showed Ac. 1-36 guntas as alleged encroachments in the form of Reddy Bhavanam, Temple, Houses, and Open Plots.
Rather than disclosing the legal basis for any of these occupations, the counter devoted paragraphs 6 to 12 almost exclusively to alleged encroachments by the petitioner himself. The court found this approach “an attempt to vilify Petitioner and deflect attention from the larger issue.” The reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, which the counter claimed were obtained after directing an enquiry, were not placed on record. The counter also did not mention any enquiry into how the encroachments arose or who was responsible.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Bheemapaka drew the following conclusions from the record. The District Collector is the Revenue Head of the District and is bound to protect government lands and to take administrative action against subordinates for dereliction of duty. Any lapse causes a direct loss to the State exchequer and to the people of the State. The court noted that Survey No. 126 is notified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu, meaning a water body, which had itself been encroached — a fact acknowledged in the counter — yet no explanation was offered as to how or by whom.
The court found that from the date of filing, Respondents 4 to 16 had sought adjournments on one pretext or another. The counter of the District Collector was filed only after a conditional order. The submissions of counsel for Respondents 6 to 12 reflected what the court described as “stoic silence” and apparent wilful blindness to the large-scale encroachments recorded in their own colleague's counter. The court held that the only reasonable conclusion was that the State machinery was actively aiding encroachments at the cost of the public exchequer, and that Respondents 4 to 17 were making a blatant and wilful attempt to keep the court in the dark while permitting encroachments to continue.
On the question of a CBI investigation, the court noted Respondent No. 3 (CBI) had submitted that such directions should be issued sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances — such as where there are national or international ramifications or where it is necessary for doing complete justice. The court was conscious of the CBI's limited resources and the risk of overburdening it. Given this, the court decided that the matter should instead be entrusted to the CBCID, while still invoking the full breadth of Article 226 to enforce the rule of law and ensure accountability of public officials who may have facilitated or connived in the encroachments.
Directions Issued
The court issued two sets of binding directions.
First, Respondent No. 6, the Director General of Police, was directed to entrust the matter to the CBCID for a thorough enquiry into the involvement of all concerned officials and private individuals in relation to the encroachments in Survey No. 126 of Injapur Village. The enquiry is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Second, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department was directed to take immediate action against the persons responsible for failing to prevent encroachments in Survey No. 126 — specifically the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 14) and the Grama Palana Officer (Respondent No. 17), identified as the first-level government servants responsible for preventing and recovering encroached land. A comprehensive report is to be filed before the court within four weeks from 13 July 2026.
Outcome
Writ Petition No. 325 of 2026 was disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.