WP/34070/2026 of Smt. Dundhigalla Smitha Varshini Vs The State of Telangana on 8 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 34070 OF 2026 Between: '1 . Smt. Dundhigalla Smitha Varshini, Wo. Dundhigalla Srinivas, Aged about 49 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o H.No.1-34, Shankar Nagar, Siddipet, Siddipet District, Telangana.

2. Sri Dundhigalla Srinivas, S/o. Balrajesham, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-34, Shankar Nagar, Siddipet, Siddipet Diskict, Telangana. ...PETITIONERS AND 't. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Siddipet District, lntegrated District Offices Complex, Duddeda (V), Kondapak (M), Siddipet District, Telangana,502277.

3. The Commissioner (FAC), Siddipet Municipality, H.No. 9-3-100, Muhinpura Siddipet, Telangana, Pincode. 502103.

4. The Town Planning Officer, Siddipet Municipality, H.No. 9-3-100, Muhinpura Siddipet, Telangana, Pincode. 502103.

5. The Tahsildar (Urban), Prashant Nagar, lndira Nagar, Siddipet, Telangana 502103. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the Speaking Order File No.G1147612026 dated 2410912026 passed by the Respondent No.3 and the direction of the District Task Force Committee dated 17 t1gt2026 as illegal, arbitrary, without reasons, passed without notice to the owner and in violation of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and the provisions of the Terangana Municiparities Act, 201g, and consequently set aside the same, and further directihe Respondents not to oemolisn, remove, seal or otherwise interfere with the building of the Fetitioners in plot Nos.g2 to 85 of survey No.1063, paripaily skeet, Siddipet] except foilowing due process'of law l.A. NO:1 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the.petition, ineiig'n court may be preased to .r.p.nJ in" operation of the speaking order Fire No c1t476t2o26 oatLa 24ngao26 0r ir.,! oi.tii.t Task Force committee dared 1710912026, by directing the Respondents to mainiain status quo in respect of the building of the pLtitionerr-in plot Nos.82 to as oi surv"v No 1063, Paripaily Street, siddipel, and not to t"r" any coercive step incruding demolition, searing or recovery of costs against the petitionlrs o,. tne-saiJ[uirai,ij' counsel for the Petitioners: sRr vlsHNU VARDHAN REDDY, sR. couNsEL REP. FOR SRI SAI DEV ROHAN YASALA counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR MUNlclpAL ADMrNlsrRATloN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 5: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER

HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA ATTryDERABAD HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34070 OF 2026 (cNR No.HBH c0r0691392026) DATE OF ORDER: 08.10.202G Between: Dundhigalla Srnitha Varshini & o.hothel .. .Petitionerg AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departrnent Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER: (oRAL) Heard Mr. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. Y.Sai Dev Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4; and perused the material on record.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned speaking order aide file No.Gl/476/2026 dated 24.09.2026 was passed by respondent No.3 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has made unauthorized conskuction and deviations to the building permit order dated 04.0L.2024 in respect of the property of the petitioners bearing Plot Nos.82 bo 85 in Survey No.1063, Ward No.17, Vasavi Nagar, Road No.1, Paripally Stree! Siddipet. It appears from the speaking order, notices dated 1,6.06.2026 and 29 06.2026 were issued to the petitioners alleging unauthorized construction in the road affected portion of Ward No.17. Reply dated

10.07 .2026 was submitted by the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to then-r, the order dated 24.09.2O26 was passed.

3. As seen from the impugned order dated 24.09.2026, it is alleged that construction has been carried out by the petitioners over the subject property in deviation of the building permit order dated 04.01.2024. It was observed that the road affected portion had not been left/maintained and construction had encroached upon the road affected portion. Later, intimation was issued to the District Task Force l'eam aide letter dated 05.09.2026 to attend the meeting in the chambers of respondent No.3. By stating that the file was examined, the DTF committee directed the applicants (petitioners herein) to remove the deviated portion falling within the road affected area within a period of seven (7) days failing which penalty will be imposed and further action will be taken under Sections 1,74, 178, 180, 181 and 185 of the Telangalra Municipalities Act,201.9. The impugned order does not point out deviations allegedll, made by the petitioners to the building permit order. The structures made in the road affection portion were also not pointed out clearly. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it would be difficult for the petitioners to remove such deviations allegedly made in the road affected portion as the speaking order does not clearly specify the extent of skucLures made on the road affected portion.

4. In view of the above, the impugned speaking order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.

J The impugned speaking order dated 24.09.2026 is hereby set aside. Consequently, respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the complaints d,ated 19.02.20'25 and 10.03.2025 by taking note of the reply dated 70.07.2026 submitted by the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is done, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in respect of the subject property and the petitioners are also directed not to proceed with any further construction over the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, i any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Oepartm"nt, The State of Telangana, Secretariat' Hyderabad'

z. in; oetri"t'collector, siioipet di.ttitt, lnt"g'"ted District offices Complex' - OuOA"A" $;, fonOapat (M), Siddipet District' Te.langana' 502277-' . .

g. i[" dr,;i6sioner iFnci, siooipei Municipalitv' H No' 9-3-100' Muhinpura Siddipet, Telangana, Pincode 502103' +. in" io*n Plan-ning Officer, Siddipet lvlunicipa)ity' H'No' 9-3-'100' Muhinpura Siddipet, Telangana, Pincode 502103' S. ihlfuf'tilOar ("Urban), Prashant Nagar, lndira Nagar' Siddipet' Telangana 502103.

6. o;; Cc to sRlsAl DEV RoHAN YASALA, Advocate [oPUc]

7. ONE CC tO SRI PUTTN TNISiNA REDDY' SC FOR MUNICIPALITY TOPUC] ; i;; ccs toe p FoR MUNIcIPAL ADMlNlsrRATloN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, nign court for ihe state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [oUT] s i*o Ec. to cp FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana. tourl '10.Two CD CoPies BN

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012026 ) j P +

ORDER

WP.No.34070 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r')t o (rr\ tl. IH