Mr. Hanuma Banoth & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Heard Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners, Mr. Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appearing for respondent No.4.

The appellants, who are writ petitioners, filed this appeal aggrieved by the interim order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned writ Court in IA No.1 of 2026 in WP No.24657 of 2026, which reads as under:

According to learned counsel for the appellants, for the last 70 years the appellants are cultivating an extent of Acs.9.23 gts., of land in Survey No.138 situated at Govindrala Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District, on the basis of a donation received from a donar. The appellants are also protecting the said land from illegal encroachments by the land grabbers. However, the respondent No.4 has, by the impugned auction notice dated 18.07.2026, proposed to conduct open lease auction on 31.07.2026 for a period of one year in respect of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.35 gts., in survey No.173 and an extent of Acs.9.23 gts., in survey No.138 situated at Govindrala Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District, in respect of a private temple, without any notice or knowledge to the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court, without taking into consideration the continued possession of the appellants over the subject property in which the temple is constructed and also maintained by the appellants, allowed the auction to be undertaken, however, making it subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the auction could not succeed on 31.07.2026. Thereafter, on the next rescheduled dates i.e., 18.08.2026 and 24.08.2026 also, it could not fructify. The appellants have given an undertaking before the learned writ Court that their interest be protected atleast for a period of one year in view of the large investments made in cultivating and maintaining the land including the Temple situated on it. Therefore, being aggrieved by the interim order, the appellants preferred this appeal.

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the auction has not fructified for the reasons beyond the control of the Department, but the learned writ Court has made the auction subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Therefore, the appellants should not have been aggrieved. He further submits that the Department would be filing a counter affidavit in the writ petition by 02.09.2026.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the main matter is pending before the learned writ Court and the proposed auction on the rescheduled dates also has not fructified, there is no impeding threat again upon the appellants’ property being auctioned for agricultural lease for one year. In that view of the matter, it would be proper that the pleadings be completed in the writ petition and heard expeditiously. As stated by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, counter affidavit would be filed by them in the writ petition by 02.09.2026. Let the writ petition be posted on 09.09.2026 for consideration on merits before the learned Single Bench.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned interim order dated 29.07.2026. The instant Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.