✦ Telangana High Court · 08 Jun 2026

C. Amarendranath v. The State of Telangana

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.C SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad -SOOO22. The…

Judgment

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post as Section Officer against the vacancy arose on 3110512024 by considering the representation of the petitionet d1.0310612024 for promotion to the post of Section Officer conditionally on par with similarly situated employees already promoted in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. M. SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. B. RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER rwtg:w7 TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.56l5 of 2026 DATED: 08.06.2026 Befween: C. Amarendranath S/o. Late Venunath AND . Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others ORDER: ... Respondents Heard Mr. G.Ravindar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. M.Shalini, learned Govemment Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for State ofAndhra Pradesh appearing for respondent No.3.

#2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondent No.2 to act upon the representation dated 03.06.2024 seeking promotion to the \'.-. next higher post against the vacancy which arose on 31.05.2024, as according to the petitioner, despite his eligibility and seniority, promotion is being denied to lII 2 the next higher post of Section officer against the vacancy which arose on

31.05-2024. Petitioner seeks promotion at par with similarly situated employees such as those promoted by G.o.Rt.No.44 Revenue (Land Matters) Departmenr, dated 03.02.2021 wherein promotions were granted to ceftain category of posts of Section officers, Assistant Section officers, etc., in the Special court on ad hoc basis, subject to bifurcation of Schedule-X institutions and also court cases pending, if any.

#3. The matter has been placed before the Division Bench by order dated

24.02.2026 passed by the leamed Single Bench as it peftains to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till now the final allocation of cadre of the petitioner has not been made, that is why the interest of both the states are involved. Ilowever, it appears that pending such allocation, the Revenue (Land Matters) Department has issued promotion orders vide G.o.Rt.No.44 dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure p10) to the posts of court officers, Section offi cers, Assistar.rt Section offi cers/Scrutiny offrcers, Assistants, etc., in the Special court Land Grabbing (prohibition), Hyderabad, from amongst the eligible candidates on ad hoc basis under Rule 10(a) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. 1996. E=r@ 3

#5. In those circumstances, since the matter at the first instance relates to the competent authority under the Department of Revenue before whom the petitioner has made representation through the Registrar, Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad on 03.06.2024, this Court, instead of making any observations on the merits of the case of the petitioner, deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition which contains all necessary details and documents in support ofhis claim

#6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.C SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad -SOOO22. The Chief Secretary, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad -500022. r.B. R. Ambedkar Telangana 2 \he Principal Secretary, Revenue (LM) Department, The State of Telangana, 3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (LM) Department, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Diskict, Andhra pradesh. 4. The Registrar, Special Court, T.S. Land Grabbing prohibition Act, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Office premises. Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

#5. One CC to SRI c. RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES Il, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at

#7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad [OUT]

#8. Two CCs to Ms B. RAJESHWAR REDDY, cP FOR REVENUE (Ap), High w Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi [OUT]

#9. Two CD Copies BN HIGH COURT DATED: 0810612026 ORDER WP.No.5615 of 2026 ( c o u H S T4r A 1 l JUN 2026 z o *

1., DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \q ol" b

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Land Grabbing Prohibition Act; T.S. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Telangana High Court, on 08 Jun 2026. The bench was APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G M MOHIUDDIN.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Telangana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments