Supreme Court dismisses Telangana govt’s plea over Lothkunta land | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, dismissed a petition filed by the Telangana govt challenging the ownership of a prime 40-acre land parcel in Lothkunta, after the state failed to satisfactorily explain a 219-day delay in approaching the apex court.The state’s petition challenged a previous Telangana high court judgement issued in favour of Shantha Sriram Constructions. The high court in Oct 2025 had ruled that the disputed land belongs to the construction firm. The state govt has filed an appeal in Aug 2026 challenging this order.A division bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed the state’s petition “on the ground of delay” and rejected a request from the state counsel for permission to file an explanation for the 219-day delay.“We have looked into the application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (SPL). Cause shown is absolutely insufficient,” the bench observed. “The SPL stands dismissed as time barred,” it recorded thereby affirming the property’s ownership by Shantha Sriram Constructions.During the hearing, counsel for Telangana govt raised objections regarding the strict application of the limitation period and stressed that the state should not suffer due to mistakes made by certain officers. The counsel offered to inquire into the delay and take appropriate action against those responsible, if required.Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court bench questioned whether the state would also “take action against the constitutional authority (responsible for the delay in approaching the apex court)”.Taking strong exception, the bench pointed to a six-month delay and questioned why the constitutional authority failed to tender advice immediately after the high court order, taking several months instead.Citing established legal precedents, the bench remarked that relaxed approaches to limitation have led to a general disregard for the Limitation Act.Stating that such excuses for delay could not be accepted, the bench emphasised the need to enforce procedural discipline. Refusing to grant additional time, the bench held that any sufficient cause for delay must be clearly established within the petition itself rather than sought as an afterthought.In connection with a contempt case pertaining to the same land, a single judge of the high court had in July directed the removal of HYDRAA commissioner, A V Ranganath, for violating court orders and fencing the disputed land. That order was suspended by a division bench of the high court in a contempt appeal on Sept 2 with specific directions to the agency to refrain from entering the disputed site. The contempt appeal has been posted to Nov 3 for a final hearing.Following the Supreme Court order, the HYDRAA chief said that he will discuss the matter “with all stakeholders, state govt, legal experts and decide about the future course of action”.