WP/34404/2026 of Sriramoju Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Mgi"1rfl Administration and Urban Development MA and UD), Department, Dr B R Ambedkar Secretariat, HYderabad.

2. Vemulawada Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vemulawada' Rajanna

3. TheTownPlanningofficer,VemulawadaMunicipalityVemulawada,Rajanna Sircilla District.

4. Nalla Nagaraiu, Employee, Fl/o. District. S/o Late 8th ward, Sankaraiah, Aged about 45 Years, Vemulawada, Vemulawada, Rajanna Private Sircilla .,...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring action of 3rd Respondent in obstructing the Petitioner from constructingthewallinWesternsideofthehousebearingH.No.4-2.32&4-1.92, Market area, Vemulawada Town, Rajanna Sircilla District even though the petitioner made representation on 22.8.2026 as illegal arbitrary and against Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 0f constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to permit the Petitioner to contract the wall in Western side of the house bearing H.No.4-2-32 and 4-1-92, Market area, Vemulawada Town, Rajanna Sircilla District and also direct the 3rd Respondent to take action against the unauthorized construction of Respondent No.4 without permission. |.A.NO:1 OF 2026 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.3 to consider the Representation dated 22.08.2026 made by the Petitioner to contract the wall in Western side of the house bearing H.No.4-2-32 and 4-1-92 Market area, Vemulawada Town, Rajanna Sircilla District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : -- The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.34404 OF 2026 CNR No.HBH C01069 17 L2026 DATE: 12-10-2026 Between: Mr. Sriramoju Srinivas ... Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 placed on record written instructions and submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, W.P. No.45666 of 2016 was filed by respondent No.4 aggrieved by the construction undertaken by the petitioner on the property bearing H.No.4-1-92, 4-l-32,8'h Ward,

BVR.J W.P. No.34404 of 2026 Vemulawada, over the road affected area' The order dated 28.12.2016 was passed by this Court in W'P' M'P'No'56825 of 2016 in W.P. No.45666 of 2016 directing respondent atrthorities therein not to allow any further construction on the subject property. Accordingly, the construction was stopped' Subsequently, Municipality issued show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding unauthorized construction' On 26'04'2016, Mrs. Nalla Bharathamma lodged complaint against the petitioner stating that construction is being done without any setbacks' Thereafter, notice dated 29.04.2016 was issued and subsequently, hnal notice dated 10.05.2016 was issued under Sections 340 and 360 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act 1965 was issued'

3. It is submitted that petitioner filed an undertaking in the fonn of affidavit that he will not construct any doors or shutters on the westem side of the property of Mrs. Nalla Bharathamnta and on 15.09.2016 he also undertook to remove the deviated portion of the stnrctures and sought time. Accordingly, part of building was demolished on 01 . 1 | .2016. As there was further construction, respondent No.4 filed contempt case in C.C. No.1625 of 2017, J where, the petitioner deposited costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and thereafter the Municipality did not permit any construction activity. On 21.08.2025, respondent No.4 lodged complaint stated that petitioner commenced the construction without valid permission. The Municipality verified the site and immediately stopped the construction. Subsequently, BVR,J

on 22.08.2026, petitioner submitted representation referring to W.P. No.45666 of 2016 and C.C. No.1625 of 2017 requesting to take action against respondent No.4 and Mr. Nalla Bhaskar and also sought permission to construct wall on the westem side and provide a door towards the lane.

4. It is further submitted that on verification of the site, no new construction was found in the property of respondent No.4 and Mr. Nalla Bhaskar requiring action to be taken by Municipal authorities and no further action is warranted against them. The building permission of petitioner is dated 28.11.2015 which was valid only up to 28.1 1.2018 and no further construction can be permitted on the basis of such expired permission. The request of the petitioner to construct wall on westem side and provide a door

BVR.J W.P. No.34404 of 2026 towards the lane cannot be considered on the basis of pennit order dated 28.1 1.2015 which was expired and unauthorized structures raised by the petitioner have been removed pursuant to the orders in W.P. No.45666 of 2016 and C.C. No.1625 of 2017.

5. In view of the above background facts and circumstances and earlier litigation in W.P. No.45666 of 2016 and C.C. No.1625 of 2017, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders. Further, as the grievance of the petitioner is that his representation is Irot being considered, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.08.2026 and pass orders, in accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all other concemed/interested persons, by affording opportunity ol hearing to them, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order

6. As this order is passed without entering into the merits, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. If respondent No'4 is in any way aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this

To BVR,J W.P. No.34404 of 2026 Court seeking modification ofthis order. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// G SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development ffi ".J UDt, Department, Dr B.it RmOedkar Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. i'n.'Commissioner, Vemulawada Muncipality, Vemulawada, Rajanna Si rcilla District. it" io*n Planning Officer, Vemulawada Municipali$ Vemulawada' Rajanna i;; ec;d GP FoR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELoPMENT' Hish Court tor tne State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI o;;Ca to snt ouot MADFusuDHAN REDDY, Advocate [oPUC] o;; cc to sRt PUTTA xntsHrun REDDY, sc FoR MUNlclPALlrlES (oPUC) Two CD CoPies b

SA i I

HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026

ORDER

WP.No.34404 o12026 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. rrAfA O6''-c ',^-i\ o q

OCT 1B o o i. l 0*Is \_- / \_-/ =-{ }s ,/ r\C /\ (