Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 129 – 138]

1. N.V.N. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 129
2. R. Jaya Laxmi v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 130
3. Vangeti Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 131
4. Kubeer Prashanth v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 132
5. Kanemoni Saradamma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. with Sanda Vajramma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 133
6. Manisha Singh & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 134
7. Kodimela Samhitha v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 135
8. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Siri Constructions; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Darshinee Infra Projects 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 136
9. Kusa Lachi Reddy & Ors. v. District Collector, Karimnagar District & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 137
10. X v Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 138

Judgments/ Orders This Month

Orders Against State Bind All Its Departments, Officers Even If Not Named As Parties To Proceedings: Telangana High Court

Case Title: N.V.N. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 129

The Telangana High Court has held that an order passed against the State binds all its departments, instrumentalities, agencies and officers, even if a particular department was not specifically made a party to the earlier proceedings. The Court said that the State is one juristic entity and cannot use different departments to repeatedly raise issues which have already been concluded against it.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that allowing different departments to successively reopen concluded issues would reduce judicial orders to a "dead letter" and strike at the rule of law.

The Court observed:

“The State is one juristic entity. Its departments, instrumentalities, agencies and officers are its limbs, and none of them enjoys a juridical existence apart from the State when it comes to obedience of judicial orders passed against the State. An order passed against the State binds every department, instrumentality, agency and officer of the State, without exception, whether or not the particular department was arrayed by name in the earlier proceeding. Were it otherwise, the State would be able to nullify every adverse adjudication by the simple expedient of deploying, one after another, a department not named in the earlier cause title, each raising afresh the very contention concluded against the State.”

Telangana High Court Directs Police To File Final Reports In Unnatural Death Cases Before Judicial Magistrate, Not Executive Magistrate

Case Title: R. Jaya Laxmi v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 130

The Telangana High Court has held that where the police conduct an investigation into an unnatural or accidental death under Section 174 CrPC, the final report must be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and not before an Executive Magistrate.

The Court further held that the person who first gave information regarding the death must be informed of the action taken by the police.

Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao issued the direction while dealing with a petition filed by a woman whose husband died after falling into a ditch dug for laying a water pipeline.

Public Purpose Cannot Justify Taking Private Land Without Lawful Acquisition Or Compensation: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Vangeti Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 131

The Telangana High Court has held that a public authority cannot indefinitely retain private property without sanction of law merely because the land has already been utilised for a public purpose.

The Court directed the State to acquire a private land it had used for constructing the Area Hospital at Bhongir and pay compensation to the landowners, after finding that the land had been taken without acquisition proceedings or compensation.

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy held that the public purpose underlying the use of private land cannot dispense with the State's constitutional obligation under Article 300-A to acquire it in accordance with law or compensate its owner.

Telangana High Court Upholds CRPF Constable's Termination On Depression Diagnosis, Cites Risk From Access To Firearms

Case Title: Kubeer Prashanth v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 132

The Telangana High Court has upheld the termination of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who was diagnosed with depression and declared medically unfit for basic training and service.

It noted that the Review Medical Board had considered the inherent stress of CRPF training and the risk arising from easy access to firearms before recommending his termination.

Justice Pulla Karthik held that the constable had been afforded ample opportunity and subjected to repeated medical evaluations before the Review Medical Board recommended his termination. The Court found no fault with the CRPF's decision to terminate his services under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Completion Of Land Acquisition Doesn't Extinguish Duty To Determine Rehabilitation Benefits Of Affected Families: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Kanemoni Saradamma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. with Sanda Vajramma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 133

The Telangana High Court has held that the statutory obligation to identify affected families and determine their Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) entitlements does not end merely because land acquisition proceedings have been completed and possession has been taken.

The Court said that this obligation is owed individually to every affected family and can be discharged even after completion of the acquisition.

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy made the observation while dealing with petitions filed by persons claiming to be landless agricultural labourers dependent on lands acquired for the Hyderabad Green Pharma City project. While refusing to set aside the acquisition declarations, the Court directed the District Collector to enquire into their claim for R&R benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Every Medical Error Not Criminal Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes FIR Against Diagnostic Staff For Issuing False Positive Report

Case Title: Manisha Singh & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 134

While quashing FIR against four staff members of a diagnostic centre for issuing an allegedly false positive Hepatitis B report to a woman before her hernia surgery, the Telangana High Court said that not criminal law cannot be invoked to punish every instance of professional negligence.

In doing so the court held that mere inadvertence, an error of judgment, or a lapse in the exercise of due care cannot, by themselves, constitute an offence under Section 336 (Act endangering life or personal safety of others) IPC.

Justice N. Tukaramji held that even if there was a lapse in issuing the initial reactive HBsAg screening report without awaiting confirmatory testing, it could at the highest give rise to civil or consumer proceedings for deficiency in medical services. Criminal liability requires negligence of such a gross and reckless degree that it endangers human life.

Children Of Central Govt Employees Transferred Outside Telangana Entitled To 'Local Candidate' Benefit For MBBS Admissions: High Court

Case Title: Kodimela Samhitha v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 135

The Telangana High Court has directed that children of Central Government, Central Government Corporations and Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) employees who studied outside State due to their parent's posting, must be given benefit of local candidature for medical and dental admissions on same terms as children of State Government employees.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that, pending a formal amendment, the proviso to Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 must be read to include these categories. The Court said there was no justifiable reason to exclude children of Central Government employees when similar exceptions had already been carved out for other categories of transferable employees.

Election Duties Of Staff Can't Excuse Delay In Filing Appeal: Telangana High Court Slams Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case Title: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Siri Constructions; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Darshinee Infra Projects

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 136

The Telangana High Court has dismissed two appeals by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) against an order setting aside its revocation of Layout Regularisation Scheme (LRS) permissions for two plots, after refusing to condone delays of 820 and 794 days in filing the appeals.

The Court also found little prima facie merit in GHMC's allegation that the plot owners' vendor had committed fraud, noting that the Corporation had regularised the plots with full knowledge that they were situated in the open space of an unapproved layout.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara held that GHMC had itself collected penal and pro-rata charges for the shortfall in open space before granting LRS permissions and subsequent building permissions. It therefore could not claim that it had been kept in the dark about the reduction of open space.

Public Purpose Of Rehabilitating Displaced Families Doesn't Justify Denying Landowners' Right To Oppose Acquisition: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Kusa Lachi Reddy & Ors. v. District Collector, Karimnagar District & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 137

The Telangana High Court has set aside land acquisition used for creating a Resettlement Zone for families displaced by the Mid Manair Reservoir Project, holding that the existence of a public purpose is distinct from an urgency serious enough to justify depriving landowners of their statutory right to object to the acquisition.

The Court held that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after issuance of preliminary notification for acquisition is a statutory safeguard available to landowners. The power under Section 17(4) to dispense with this enquiry is exceptional and requires circumstances showing that even the short time required for such an enquiry cannot be afforded the court added.

Wife's Enrolment As Advocate Does Not Prove Sufficiency Of Income To Deny Her Maintenance Claim: Telangana High Court

Case Title: X v Y

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 138

The Telangana High Court has held that merely being enrolled as an advocate and engaged in independent legal practice does not establish that a wife has sufficient independent income to disentitle her from maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court stressed that the statutory test is the sufficiency of income actually available, and not educational qualifications, professional standing or earning capacity.

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy made the observation while allowing a wife's review application against an earlier High Court order which had set aside the interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month granted to her by the Family Court.