The Telangana High Court directed four Congress MLAs to submit a fresh representation to the government regarding their Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning land at Khajaguda. The MLAs, who claimed that permission granted to a builder for constructing eight towers on 27 acres of land was illegal, argued that the land belonged to the state government since 1969. They contended that part of the construction was within the Full Tank Level of Khajaguda Lake.

During a hearing on June 16, 2025, the bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, noted that details about the disputed lands were not adequately specified in the petition. The court adjourned further proceedings for two weeks while instructing the petitioners' counsel to present clearer information regarding survey numbers related to both government and private lands.

The MLAs asserted that previous permissions granted by earlier state governments in 2023 and again in October 2024 were based on erroneous claims about land ownership. They indicated that earlier representations made to state authorities had not resulted in any action. The court's directive emphasized the need for clarity before proceeding with any judicial orders regarding this matter.

Original article

The provided text exhibits a range of biases and manipulative language, reflecting a subtle yet pervasive ideological stance. One of the most striking aspects is the cultural and ideological bias embedded in the narrative. The text presents itself as a neutral reportage of a court case, but upon closer examination, it reveals a clear leaning towards supporting the Congress MLAs' claims against the builder. This is evident in the way the MLAs' arguments are presented as legitimate and fact-based, while the builder's permissions are framed as "erroneous claims about land ownership." This framing creates an implicit moral hierarchy, where the MLAs are positioned as champions of justice and truth, while the builder is cast as an antagonist.

This bias is further reinforced by the use of emotive language, such as "illegal" and "part of the construction was within the Full Tank Level of Khajaguda Lake," which creates a sense of urgency and moral outrage. The text also employs passive constructions that obscure agency, stating that "permissions granted by earlier state governments" were based on erroneous claims. This phrasing shifts attention away from individual actors and towards systemic failures, reinforcing a narrative that blames institutions rather than individuals for wrongdoing.

The selection and omission bias in this text is also noteworthy. By focusing exclusively on the Congress MLAs' petition and ignoring potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, the narrative creates an unbalanced representation of events. The omission of any information about potential flaws in the MLAs' own claims or their motivations for pursuing this case serves to reinforce their legitimacy. Furthermore, by presenting only one side's interpretation of events – namely that previous permissions were based on erroneous claims – the text suppresses alternative explanations or critiques.

Structural bias is also present in this narrative through its reliance on institutional authority figures (the court) to validate or invalidate certain actions. By presenting court proceedings as objective arbiters of truth, rather than acknowledging their own biases or limitations, this text reinforces a faith in institutional power structures without critically examining their potential flaws or contradictions.

Confirmation bias is evident throughout this narrative due to its uncritical acceptance of assumptions without question or evidence-based scrutiny. For instance, when discussing previous permissions granted by state governments in 2023 and October 2024 being based on erroneous claims about land ownership," there is no attempt to provide concrete evidence for these assertions beyond stating them outright; instead relying solely on hearsay from unnamed sources ("earlier representations made to state authorities had not resulted in any action"). Similarly when discussing who owns land since 1969 there's no credible source cited for such claim

Framing bias can be observed through how specific details are ordered within paragraphs: descriptions regarding government actions take precedence over private entities involved; highlighting problems faced with public interest litigation over private concerns like profit maximization etc., thus reinforcing an agenda favoring collective welfare over individual interests

Lastly linguistic manipulation should be noted via euphemisms used throughout e.g., describing eight towers under construction simply 'constructing eight towers'.