Mandal Aravind vs The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR FORESTS — WP/11066/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: HBHC010232072026

Filing Number

WP/16687/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/11066/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Surepalli Nanda

Coram

Surepalli Nanda

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

MISCELLANEOUS ( 27 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 13-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mandal Aravind

    Adv. RUDRESH DESHPANDE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR FORESTS

  2. 2.The District Forest Officer

  3. 3.The Divisional Forest Officer

  4. 4.The Forest Range Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Surepalli NandaView PDF

    The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the forest department respondents to follow due legal procedure under the Forest Act, 1967, while noting that the petitioner is the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed agricultural land with valid revenue records and title deeds, and had been acquitted in a prior criminal case brought against him. The court's decision effectively protected the petitioner's possession rights while requiring the respondents to follow proper legal procedures if they wish to take any further action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Anil Kumar JukantiView PDF

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Admission (Forest)

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/11066/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the forest department respondents to follow due legal procedure under the Forest Act, 1967, while noting that the petitioner is the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed agricultural land with valid revenue records and title deeds, and had been acquitted in a prior criminal case brought against him. The court's decision effectively protected the petitioner's possession rights while requiring the respondents to follow proper legal procedures if they wish to take any further action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case