Telangana High Court
WP/26995/2026 of K. Amrutha 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: 26995 OF 2026 Between: K. Amrutha, Wo K. Krishna Aged about 48 years, Occ.
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: 26995 OF 2026
Between:
K. Amrutha, Wo K. Krishna Aged about 48 years, Occ. House hold, R/o H.No.
4-8-353/1, Situated at Allampally Village, Vikarabad Municipality and District, TG
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The Commissioner, Vikarabad Municipality, Vikarabad Diskict, Telangana
3. Munnuru Anurad.ha, Wo M.Vijay Kumar, Aged about 33, Occ. House hold, R/o 4-4-358, Allampally Village, Vikarabad Municipality, Vikarabad District, Telangana
...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 to issue an appropriate Writ or Order/s or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 in not considering the petitioner representation dl. 28-07 -2026
wherein it was requested the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 to stop the unauthorized construction and to remove the unauthorized construction towards the public passage carried by the unofficial res No.3 in respect of H.No. 4-8-356/1, situated at Allampally, Vikarabad Municipality and District, TS, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia.
l.A. NO: 1OF 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 official Respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 28-07- 2026 and take action for the removal/demolition of the unauthorized construction carried by the unofficial respondent No.3 in respect of H.No. 4-8- 356/1 , situated at Allampally, Vikarabad Municipality and District, TS, in pursuant to the petitioner representation dt. 28-07 -2026.
Counsel for the
Counsel for the
Counsel for the
Counsel for the
Petitioner: SRI MIRZA SHAH NAWAZ BAIG
Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & TJRBAN DEV
Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SG FOR MPCL
Respondent No.3: Ms. MALLAREDDYGARI HARTIKA
The Court made the following: ORDER
ffi[€t@'.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.26995 OB 2026
CNR No.HBHC010557362 0
DATE:08-10-2026
Between:
Mrs. K. Amrutha
... Petitioner
AND
The State ol Telangana
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
... Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(ORAL) Heard Mr. Mirza Shah Nawaz Baig, leamed cor.rnsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities for respondent No.2 and Ms. Mallareddygari Hartika, leamed counsel for respondent No.3.
2. This Court passed order dated 17.08.2026 directing respondent No.2 to seal the subject property and ensure that no further construction activity is cqrried out in subject property.
--
3. Leamed counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the order dated 17.08.2026 was passed by this (lourt on the misrepresentation made by the petitioner that order dated 16.07.2025 (wrongly noted as 16.09.2025 in the order dated 17.08.2026) was passed by respondent No.2. In facr, notice dated 16.07.2025 issued to respondent No.3 which is a shorv-cause notice and so far enquiry has not been concluded. Therr: was intemal arrangement between the family members for the usage of common access and the alleged encroachment is not on a public road. Respondent No.3 did not receive any notice date,7 16.07.2025 However, subsequently reminder notice dated 08.09.2026 was issued to which respondent No.3 submitted replv on |0.09.2026 and W.P. No.34029 of 2026 was filed challenging tee said notice and also the action of authorities in sealing of subject property.
Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that building permission cannot be permitted as permission granted to respondent No.3 was revoked by letter dated 08.12.2022.
s@#c!!'
5. However, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that construction is undertaken by respondent No.3 on the basis of work commencement letter dated 16.08.2023.
6. Leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that as of now work commencement letter dated 16.08.2023 has not been revoked.
7. In view ofthe above, the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.26995 of 2026 stands vacated.
8. However, considering that show-cause notice dated 16.07.2025 was issued to respondent No.3 under Sections 176, 178 and 181 of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 and subsequently similar notice dated 08.09.2026 was issued, respondent No.2 is directed to proceed with enquiry and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3 and all other concerned,/ interested persons, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the sealing affected on the property bearing H.No.4-8-356/1 situated at Allampally, --
Vikarabad District, shall be removed. It is made clear that respondent No.3 shall not make any further construction in deviation to the sanctioned plan and work commencement letter dated 16.08.2023. If it is noticed by responde,nt No.2 that unauthorized construction is being carried out by resrondent No.3, respondent No.2 is at liberty to stop the construction made on the subject property.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition rs disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicar.ions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PRAMOD NAIK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' The Commissione,, vraraoaa uunicip-ality, Vikarabad District, Telangana ci;";; i;;Rir'rrizn sHnrirlnwnz BAG' Ad-vocate IoPUCI Two ccs to GP FoR MCPI'noMii a UCaAN DEV' Hi3h court for the state ofielangana, at HYderabad [OUT] one CC to SRI PUTTA TNiiilTIN TiEODY, SC FOR MPCL [OPUC] ONE CC tO MS. MALLAREOOiONNI HARTIKA' AdVOCAIE TOPUC]
J
E A
K. PSs Two CD CoPies
CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012026
ORDER
WP.No.26995 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. n,; !, IAIc. \ e () (a z 0I OcT 202$ I l tao
6. \ a &