Telangana High Court
Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi vs The Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, ... on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs. 4941 OF 2014, 27628 OF 2021 &
18810 OF 2023
DATE: 25.03.2026
W.P.No.4941 of 2014:
Between:
Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi, D/o.Late Sri Akula Janga Reddy,
r/o.Plot No.26, Krishna Reddy Colony, New Bowenpally,
Secunderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
The Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, Pedda Amberpet,
Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District.
.... Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. G.Raghupathi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr. Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Peddda Amberpet Municipality and Mr. V.Siddhartha Goud representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA in all the writ petitions.
2. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not conducting an enquiry pursuant to the representations of the petitioner, dated 12.02.2014, 27.09.2021, 04.10.2021, and 09.05.2023, and not taking action against 2 the illegally and unauthorized constructions being made in the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.120 admeasuring Ac.5.15 gts, Sy.No.121 admeasuring Ac.5.02 gts; Sy.No.122 admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts, Sy.No.123 admeasuring Ac.1.31 gts, Sy.No.124/1 admeasuring Ac.0.22 gts, Sy.No.124/2 admeasuring Ac.0.02 gts, Sy.No.125 admeasuring Ac.1.16 gts, Sy.No.126 admeasuring Ac.0.38 gts, Sy.No.127 admeasuring Ac.1.13 gts, Sy.No139 admeasuring Ac.15.08 gts, Sy.No.140 admeasuring Ac.12.07 gts, Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.7.22 gts, Sy.No.155 admeasuring Ac.13.37 gts, Sy.No.156 admeasuring Ac.6.13 gts, and Sy.No.157 admeasuring Ac.20.08 gts, situated at Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal (previously Hayathnagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, since 2015 onwards to till to date etc., as illegal, arbitrary, bias, violation of the principles of natural justice, fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 , 21, 300-A etc. of the Constitution of India, and the Municipal Laws and consequently, to direct the officials respondents to conduct a proper enquiry and to demolish the illegal constructions raised in the said lands and further not to sanction any layout permission in the said land.
3
3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the suit in O.S.No.383 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, has been filed for partition and separate possession, and the same is pending adjudication, between the inter se parties, namely, petitioner & two others and the unofficial respondent Nos.12 to 20 in W.P.No.18810 of 2023. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the said, I.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 were filed seeking grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, and the interim orders were obtained restraining the respondents/defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs therein, and that as on today, the said injunction orders are still subsisting.
4. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, the unofficial respondents, taking undue advantage of the situation, are raising illegal constructions in the subject property. However, it is stated that for execution of the said orders in I.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013, the petitioners/plaintiffs have already moved an application for police 4 aid, despite the same, the unofficial respondents continue to proceed with the constructions.
5. Initially, when the matter was taken up for hearing before this Court in W.P.No.18810 of 2023 on 19.07.2023, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, has observed as under:
"In the meanwhile, respondent authorities are directed to verify and report whether any illegal construction is being made as alleged by the petitioner, on the next date of hearing."
6. It is stated that despite the said observation, the official respondents have not taken any steps or reported any compliance.
7. However, the learned counsel Mr. V.Siddharth Goud, representing learned Standing Counsel Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, would contend that this Court, vide order dated 19.07.2023, directed the official respondents to verify and report as to whether any illegal constructions are being made, as alleged by the petitioners. In this regard, a letter bearing No.W.P.No.18803 of 2023/GTKR/Plg/ HMDA/2023, dated 02.08.2023, was also issued to the respondent No.5-Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration in W.P.No.18810 of 2023.
5
8. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that, insofar as the removal of unauthorized constructions is concerned, as per the Circular Letter No.1803/Policy/Plg/HMDA/2020, dated 19.03.2020, and Section 23(3) of the HMDA Act, 2008, where any development or construction is undertaken by an owner, builder, or developer without proper approval or in violation of the Metropolitan Development Plan, Investment Plan, area development plan, development scheme, or any applicable rule, regulation, or order, it is the concerned local authority to take appropriate action against such unauthorized development. Therefore, it is stated that the 6th respondent - Commissioner, HMDA, has no locus standi to initiate such action.
9. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. S.Ravinder Reddy for the Pedda Amberpet Municipality would contend that the said representations of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate action would be taken thereon.
10. As seen from the record, admittedly a suit is pending adjudication before the parties. However, it is now stated that illegal constructions are being undertaken by the unofficial respondents. In that view of the matter, the official respondents being statutory 6 authorities are bound to follow the due procedure as envisaged under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, issue notice to the affected parties and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.
11. In that view of the matter, as the limited grievance of the petitioner is only for consideration of his representations filed before the Pedda Amberpet Municipality, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondent-Commissioner, Pedda Amberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy district, to follow the due procedure as envisaged under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, by taking into consideration of the representations filed by the petitioner, and serving notice on all the affected parties and if required, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, thereafter pass appropriate orders and take consequent action thereto.
12. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_______________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J Date: 25.03.2026 kkm