Telangana High Court
WP/16884/2010 of Smt.Vadde Nalini Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the on 24 February 2026
AD Between: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16884 0F 2010 ...PETITIONERS 1. SmlVadde Nalini, Wo.Sri
AD
Between:
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 16884 0F 2010
...PETITIONERS
1. SmlVadde Nalini, Wo.Sri Vadde Ramesh Housewife R/o. plot No.696, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - S00 033 (A.p.)
2. smt.chintapalli seetha, wo.c.Amarnath Housewife 1st petitioner hereinR/o.
Plot No.696, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - 500 033 (A.p.)
3. Padmini, D/o.C.Amarnath Housewife hereinR/o. plot No.696, Road No.31.
Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - 500 033 (A.p.)
4 Neelima, D/o.C.Amarnath Housewife plot No.696, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - 500 033 (A.P.)
5. Malini, D/o.C.Amarnath Housewife Plot No.696, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - 500 033 (A.P.)
AND
Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the, principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Urban Land Ceiling), A.p., Secretariat, HyOeraOdd.
2. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented bv the. princioal Secretarv.
Municipal Administrative and Urban Development, A.p., Se'cretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The Commissioner, G.H.M.C., at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
4 The Special Officer & Competent Authority,, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad.
5. B.S.Neelakanta, S/o.B.Somasekharan Business Flat No..101 , Uma Villa Apartments, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -34 (A.p.)
6 Govt. of Telangana, rep. by Prl. Secretary,, Revenue (Urban Land Ceiling)
Dept., Secretaiiat, Hyd.
R6 is impleaded as per c.O. dt. 1l-10-14 in WpMp 38087 of 14.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the cirt;umstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more appropriatery a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the official Respondents in not taking any action againsi the Sth respondent in going ahead with construction by him in sy.No.11 of Khanammet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District contrary to the status Quo orders passed by this Honble court both in w.P.No.20407 of 2008 and also w.P No.9714 of 2009 as iilegal and further direct the official Re:ipondents to demolish the constructed portion of the area made by the sth responCent in Sy.No.11 of Khanammet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and prevent the sth Respondent to go ahead with any further constru,:tion in the said area until disposal of the batch of said writ petitions i.e., W'.P.No.9714 ot 2009 and batch pending before this Honble Court and also in the {iupreme Court.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(WPMP. NO:24119 OF 2010)
Petition under Order V Rule 20 R/w 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 permit the petitioners herein to get the notice to the 5th respondent to be published in any local Telugu Daily News paper(Hyderabad edition) by ordering substitute service to the 5th respondent in wp.No.16884 of
l.A. NO:1 OF 201O(WPMP. NO:.21293 oF 20101
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 direct the Official Respondents herein to stop the 5th Respondent herein to go ahead with any further construction in Sy.No.1 'l of Khanammet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.RAJANNA
Counsel for the Re:;pondents No.'t: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Re:ipondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEV
Counsel for Resporrdent No.3 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC
Counsel for Respondent No.4 :
--
,-
Counsel for Respondent No.S : Ms.N.NAYITHA
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN TH]E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.16884 OF 2O1O
DATE: 24.02.2026
Between:
Smt. Vadcte Nalini, w / o.Vadde Ramesh,
and four others.
.... Petitioners
and
The Gover.rment of Andhra Pradesh,
rep.by the .Principal Secre tary t
Revenud Department (Urban Land Ceiling), Secretariat, Hyderabad and five 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:
Hearci Mr. K.Rajanna, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. G.Madh,usudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent No.3 and Ms. N.Nayitha, learned counsel for respondent l'1o.5.
2. The inr;tant writ Petition has been filed to declare the action of the officiat respondents in not taking any action against the 5ft respondent and permitting him to ahead with construction in Sy.No.llofKhanammetvillage,SerilingamapllyMandal,Ranga
I Reddy District, contrary to the status quo orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.20407 of 2008 and also W.P.No.97'1.4 of 2009, as illegal, and consequently direct the official respondents to demolish the constructed portion of the area made by the 5th respondent in the subject property and stop the 5th respondent with any further construction in the said area until disposal of the batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.9714 of 2009 and other, pending before this Court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. N.Nayitha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would contend that W.P.No.971,4 of 2009 and batch, were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by u common order dated 12.09.2012, with appropriate directions in the said issue, and that the matter has already been carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the very same disputed property In that view of the matter, the prayer sought in the present
4. writ petition is not feasible to be granted at this state, and as suctu the Writ Petition is accordingly closed. t {
J
5. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach this Court or any other competent forum after determination of dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Tht:re shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI K.RAJANNA, Advocate lOPUCl
2. TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE.HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]
3. Two CCI; to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telahgana at Hyderabad [OUT!
4. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY. SC FOR GHMC IOPUCI
5. One CC to Ms.N.NIYATHA, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CD 3oPies. ,fu esx BS
HIGH CO.URT DATED:2410212026 WP.No.161384 of 2010 CLOSING']THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS S i 16 urff * a.: f f ',1,'i c;) , E -., u \0 rL