Kondal Rao vs Koduru Arjuna Rao
2026 Latest Caselaw 86 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kondal Rao vs Koduru Arjuna Rao on 26 March, 2026

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                         HYDERABAD

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                        AND
 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
                          L.P.A.No.3 of 2026

                           Date:26.03.2026
Between:
Mr.Kondal Rao

                                                        ... Appellant
                               And
Mr.Koduru Arjuna Rao and others.
                                                       ...Respondents
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr.J.Ramachander Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for

Mr.Akkapeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

perused the record.

2. The instant is the Letters Patent Appeal

(for short "the LPA") which has been preferred assailing the order

passed by the learned Single Bench in C.C.No.3116 of 2025

decided on 27.02.2026.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Bench seized of

the contempt case has directed the District Collector to take steps to

protect the subject property and not to allow any sort of

constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the

contempt case. In the contempt case, there are two respondents

who have been made party as contemnors. One is the District

Collector as respondent No.1. The second is Chief Secretary of

General Administration Department as respondent No.2. The

Contempt Case is arising out of WP.No.7833 of 2025 which is still

pending consideration before the learned single Bench. The

contempt case is filed alleging willful non-compliance and

violation of the order passed by the learned Single Bench seized of

WP.No.7833 of 2025, dated 08.07.2025.

4. Even in the original W.P.No.7833 of 2025, the appellant in

the instant LPA namely Kondal Rao is not a party. The relevant

portion of direction by the Single Bench on 08.07.2025 reads as

under:

"This Court vide orders dated 10.04.2025, after hearing Sri J.Ramachander llao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short "RDO") has directed the respondents 2,4,6 and 7 to protect the lands in Survey Nos.15, 41, 83, 132, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337 and 511 situated at Bachupalli Village, and not to permit any transactions, mutations, alienations or change in the nature of the said lands, in any manner, till the next date of hearing.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order has been extended from time to time. This Court

has carefully considered the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short "LRT") in LCC.No.702/M/1975, dated 18.12.2019, wherein the Tribunal determined the computation in respect of the holdings of the declarant and vesting of the amounts under the provision of the Act. It is settled law that the surplus lands are vested free from all encumbrances and duty is cast upon on the primary authority under the Act. Under Section 17 of the Act not to allow any transactions over the subject matter of the declaration by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise, or effect a partition thereof, or create a trust, the powers also conferred on the RDO. Further under Section 19(6) specifically states, where it appears to the Tribunal or the RDO, as the case may be as a result of verification under Sub-Section 4 or Sub-Section 5 or in any other manner that a transaction has taken place in contravention of the provisions of this Act, it or he shall, after giving an opportunity of making representation to the parties likely to be affected and holding such enquiry as it or he may consider necessary, by order, determine whether or not the transaction is in contravention of the provisions of this Act; and where any transaction is so determined to be in contravention of the said provisions, it shall be null and void. Since the Original Authority being conferred with power to declare any of the transactions after conducting enquiry vested in the state as null and void including cancellation of the registered sale deeds or alienations, it is appropriate for this Court, instead of conducting an enquiry of its own, to come to a conclusion, directing the District Collector to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 04.07.2025 strictly inconformity with the orders passed by the LRT and protecting the property vested in the state under Sections 16 & 17 and even if necessary by invoking provisions of Section 19 of the Act in accordance with law.

Pending passing of the further orders, the District Collector is directed to place a report on the action being taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner after a period of eight (08) weeks to consider the main relief in the Writ Petition."

5. It is the non-compliance of this order, against which the

present contempt case vide C.C.No.3116 of 2025 was filed. When

the matter was taken-up for hearing, the contempt Court on

27.02.2026 passed the following order:

"Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the authorities are not permitting any sort of constructions over the subject lands pending adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and the third parties, who alleged to have purchased the property.

In view of the above submissions, the respondent No.1- District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the Tashildar, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District are directed to take steps to protect the subject property and not to allow any sort of constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the contempt case."

6. A plain reading of the order passed by the contempt Court

against which, the present LPA is filed would go to show that the

directions have been issued to the District Collector to ensure that

status-quo in respect of the subject property be maintained without

any sort of any constructions being permitted on the subject

property meanwhile. The appellant herein has preferred the instant

LPA on the ground that as a consequence of the implementation of

the direction given by the contempt Court, his right over the subject

property is getting infringed and interfered with by the Government

Agency and his right to enjoy the property is also getting adversely

affected. He also contends that he has already approached the

Land Revenue Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"),

whereas the appeal has been registered as LRA No.2 of 2022,

where all the respondents in the original writ petition are all parties

to the proceedings including the writ petitioner who has filed

WP.No.7833 of 2025. Suppressing the pendency of said

proceedings before the Tribunal, WP.No.7833 of 2025 was filed

and interim order has been passed. He further contends that even

Government has preferred appeal before the Tribunal which is

LRA No.1 of 2021 which is also pending consideration and there

are few other appeals also filed before the Tribunal and all the

proceedings are seized by the Tribunal and analogous proceedings

have been drawn in those. Pending the appeal, before the Tribunal,

the writ Court could not have passed any direction detriment to

interest of any of the parties therein.

7. At the outset, this Bench has difficulty in accepting the locus

of the appellant in the instant appeal in the course of assailing the

order dated 27.02.2026 passed in CC.No.3116 of 2025 on account

of fact that he is not a party in the writ petition. He ought to have

approached the Single Bench by moving a petition either for

impleadment or intervention highlighting his claim over the subject

property and seeking for modification or vacating of the order

passed by the Single Bench on 10.04.2025 or 08.07.2025, which

the appellant has not exercised. At the same time, the appellant in

the LPA has already preferred Writ Appeal against the order dated

08.07.2025 which is at SR stage vide WA (SR) No.12064 of 2026.

8. We have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a

proper course of action for the appellant herein is to pursue the writ

appeal that he has already preferred, where the Writ Appellate

Court has power to test the veracity of interim order,

dated 08.07.2025 and if the appellant is able to convince the Writ

Appellate Court, he can also get stay of effect and operation of the

said order. As a consequence of which, all proceedings flowing

from the order dated 08.07.2025 which includes the contempt

proceedings would automatically get stayed. In addition, the

appellant, as earlier observed, could also approach the same Writ

Court where the matter is pending by moving appropriate

application for vacating or modification of the interim order.

Moreover, even if the contempt proceedings is permitted to

proceed further, the contempt Court initiates contempt against the

respondent we do not see any good reason of appellant ordering for

contempt only for the reason that he is neither a party in the writ

petition nor party in the contempt proceedings.

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we hold that

the Letters Patent Appeal would not be sustainable and is

accordingly dismissed reserving right of the appellant to resort to

the remedies available to him. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J

26.03.2026 Nvl