Subramanyam Abhi vs State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR REVENUE — WP/8806/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Status: Admission (Revenue). Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.

Admission (Revenue) Next hearing 22-Apr-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HBHC010183492026

Filing Number

WP/13252/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/8806/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

B.Vijaysen Reddy

Coram

B.Vijaysen Reddy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 12-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Subramanyam Abhi

    Adv. KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR REVENUE

  2. 2.The District Collector

  3. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer

  4. 4.The Tahsildar

Case History

  1. 22-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    Admission (Revenue)

    B.Vijaysen Reddy

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    B.Vijaysen ReddyView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Telangana granted an interim direction in favor of petitioner Subramanyam Abhi in Writ Petition No. 8806 of 2026. The court recognized the petitioner's ownership and possession of the disputed agricultural property (measuring 9,680 and 19,360 square yards in Survey No. 376/3/A at Batasingaram Village, Ranga Reddy District) based on submitted sale deeds and other documents. The court directed respondents No. 3 and 4 (Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar) not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law, with the case posted for further hearing on 22.04.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/8806/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Telangana granted an interim direction in favor of petitioner Subramanyam Abhi in Writ Petition No. 8806 of 2026. The court recognized the petitioner's ownership and possession of the disputed agricultural property (measuring 9,680 and 19,360 square yards in Survey No. 376/3/A at Batasingaram Village, Ranga Reddy District) based on submitted sale deeds and other documents. The court directed respondents No. 3 and 4 (Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar) not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law, with the case posted for further hearing on 22.04.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case