The Andhra Pradesh government made a bold move on Monday. It officially staked its claim to a valuable land parcel in Kondapur, Hyderabad. This property is worth over Rs 4,000 crore. The AP government is directly challenging Telangana's right to allocate this land to any private party.
Legal Counter Filed in High Court
In a detailed counter filed with the Telangana High Court, the Andhra Pradesh government presented its case. It stated that this prime 42.03-acre property was originally allotted by the AP government itself. The allocation happened back in 2005. The beneficiary was the Kurnool-based Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Central Trust.
The AP government maintains that this land remains under the control of its own endowments department today. It firmly rejected Telangana's claim of any right over the property. This rejection sets the stage for a fierce legal confrontation.
Origins of the Dispute
This heated legal tussle centers on extremely high-value real estate. The land sits right in the heart of Hyderabad's bustling IT corridor. The dispute formally began in 2024. At that time, a group of private individuals filed more than twenty petitions in the high court. These petitions challenged the transfer of the 42.03 acres.
The land, belonging to the Balasaibaba Trust, was reportedly transferred to an entity called Bhupati Estates. This action triggered the legal battle.
Court Proceedings and Government Responses
During the last hearing on December 16, 2025, the Telangana High Court issued clear directions. It ordered both state governments to file their counters in the case. Andhra Pradesh has now complied with this order by submitting its detailed counter-affidavit.
Telangana, however, has not yet filed its counter. The court had previously given Telangana a "last chance" to do so. This extension was subject to a condition. The state must pay a fine of Rs 5,000 per petition to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.
Andhra Pradesh's Core Arguments
The AP government's counter makes several key allegations. It claims that Telangana acted discreetly. In 2023, Telangana allegedly included the name of Bhupati Estates in the official revenue records. This was done instead of keeping the trust's name. Critically, the AP government says it was not informed about this change.
According to Andhra Pradesh's legal submission, the land was regularized in the name of the Balasaibaba Trust in 2005. This regularization occurred under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act.
Control and Management Since 2018
The narrative takes a turn after the death of Balasaibaba in 2018. Following this event, the land came under the direct control of the Andhra Pradesh endowments department. It has remained with this department ever since.
The AP endowments department has been actively managing the land. It has also taken various measures to protect the property from unauthorized use or claims.
Legal Grounds Cited by Andhra Pradesh
In its counter, the AP government invoked specific rules. It cited the regulations of the Land Ceiling Act to bolster its argument. Based on these rules, Andhra Pradesh dismissed Telangana's right to transfer the land to private entities or individuals.
To strengthen its position, AP produced a crucial piece of evidence. This was a letter from the managing trustee of the Balasaibaba Trust. The letter explicitly states that the trust's land falls under the purview of the AP endowments department.
Contradiction in Telangana's Own Records
The Andhra Pradesh counter makes another interesting point. It claims that Telangana's own official orders indicate the land belongs to the trust. This trust is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Act. Therefore, the management rights logically belong to the AP endowments department.
The AP government concluded with a strong legal principle. It stated, "Endowments land cannot be handed to private individuals without high court approval." This statement underscores the procedural safeguards it believes Telangana has bypassed.
The case continues in the Telangana High Court, with significant financial and jurisdictional implications for both states.
