The Telangana High Court has reserved orders on three criminal petitions filed by top BRS leaders K Chandrasekhar Rao, KT Rama Rao and T Harish Rao seeking quashing of FIRs linked to the 2011 “Million March” agitation.
Justice K Sujana heard the matter involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 382 and 324 IPC, registered at the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The cases stem from complaints by journalists K Raju, N Prasad Yadav and videographer D Surya Prakash, who alleged they were assaulted while covering the protest at Tank Bund on March 10, 2011. They also claimed that their equipment was forcibly taken and thrown into the water.
Senior counsel TV Ramana Rao, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the complainants failed to identify the accused during investigation, indicating that the petitioners were not present at the scene.
Opposing the pleas, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao submitted that a chargesheet has already been filed and the matter requires trial.
The court reserved its orders on the pleas related to the agitation that was part of the statehood movement.
Notice to SHO for conduct in advocate case
The Telangana High Court has raised concerns over alleged police misconduct in a writ petition filed by advocate Singapogu Subba Rao.
The matter came up before Justice EV Venugopal. The petitioner alleged that he was humiliated at Panjagutta police station when he visited to inquire about his clients’ case. He claimed that the Station House Officer behaved in a derogatory manner and that he was subjected to a breath analyser test inside the police station.
Although the test results were within permissible limits, the petitioner contended that the act itself was unwarranted and humiliating. He also expressed apprehension of being followed by unidentified persons.
Senior counsel V Raghunath, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the police actions were unlawful and violated due procedure. Government counsel for the Home department denied the allegations and sought time to file a counter.
After examining video evidence, Justice Venugopal observed that conducting a breath analyser test inside a police station is not a procedure recognised by law and raised concerns over the conduct of officials.
The court directed police to preserve CCTV footage from all angles and cautioned that the petitioner’s personal liberty and fundamental rights must not be infringed except through due process. Personal notices were issued to the SHO concerned.
The matter has been adjourned for two weeks.
RDO sentenced to one month jail for ‘wilful disobedience’ of orders
The Telangana High Court has sentenced Koppula Venkat Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar, to one month’s imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 for wilful disobedience of its orders.
Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy held the officer guilty of civil contempt for failing to comply with directions issued on February 18, 2025, in a writ petition filed by Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan. The court had directed adjudication of land disputes involving 74.97 acres in Peddashapur village within six weeks.
The RDO acted only on February 24, 2026, after contempt proceedings began. The court held that delayed action, coupled with lack of proper application of mind, did not amount to valid compliance.
It observed that the officer ignored remand directions of the appellate authority, relied on proceedings already set aside, and failed to consider relevant evidence, including prior judicial findings and revenue records.
Rejecting the explanation of administrative delay, the court held the conduct to be deliberate and lacking bona fides, stressing that compliance must be substantive, not merely procedural.
Invoking Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court set aside the February 24, 2026 proceedings and directed the Rangareddy collector to assign the matter to another RDO for fresh adjudication within six weeks.
The sentence has been suspended for two weeks to enable the contemnor to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial-I).
Single judge order on rehabilitation benefits to NH-563 land losers set aside
The Telangana High Court has set aside a single judge’s order that relegated land losers to an alternative remedy, holding that their claims for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits must be independently examined under law.
A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin allowed a writ appeal filed by S Shabeer and two others, affected by land acquisition for the Karimnagar–Warangal stretch of NH-563.
The appellants argued that while compensation was paid, authorities failed to extend R&R benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly under the Second and Third Schedules.
The court noted that, under a Union government order dated August 28, 2015, provisions relating to compensation, rehabilitation and infrastructural amenities under the 2013 Act apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956. It held that the earlier writ court failed to consider this position while directing recourse under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act.
Accepting submissions that denial of R&R benefits was unsustainable, the bench held that Section 3G(5) applies only where an award exists for such claims, which was absent here.
The court granted liberty to the appellants to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Hanamkonda, directing disposal within eight weeks. It also permitted them to seek temporary shelter, noting their claim that their houses had been demolished.