Telangana High Court
WP/34772/2014 of Paleti Linga Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana, on 5 February 2026
Between: Paleti Linga Rao,, S/o. Late Sri Raghavaiah, aged 72 yeafs, R/o. Plot No.205, S.S.Colony, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Telangana, rep by its Secretary, Municipal and Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. AP Housing Board, rep. by its
[ 3485 I
Between:
Paleti Linga Rao,, S/o. Late Sri Raghavaiah, aged 72 yeafs, R/o. Plot No.205, S.S.Colony, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Telangana, rep by its Secretary, Municipal and Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. AP Housing Board, rep. by its tVlanaging Director, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The Executive Engineer, Western Division, AP Housing Board, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
4. The Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle 14, GHMC, Moosapeta, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
6. Sri Dharma Reddy, Residential Colony Plot Owners, Association rep.. b.y its Genera I Secretary,' Rl/o. Hyderngar Viliage, Balanagar Revenue Ma ndal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Sri tr/.N.Reddy, S/o. Sri Venkata Subba Reddy,.g.ged 6-2 y.ears, Rio. LIG 23, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-ll, Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Revenue lt/andal, Ranga Reddy District.
8. Sri Koneru Lokanatha Rao, S/o.K.S.Nageshwara Rao, aged 6O years, Rio.
Plot No.41 0, HMT Shatavahana Nagar,kukatpally, Hyderabad'
9. SriAbdul Hameed, S/o. Abudl Rehman, aged 55 years, R/o. Door No.2-47, Old Hafeezpet, Ranga Reddy District IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original J urisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT
.....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 a writ particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TVIANDAMUS
declaring thr; action of the Respondents in demolishing the structures and dispossessin,3 the Petitioner from the pr:emises bearing H. No.16-2-tM175lA, in S.No.143 situated adjecent to Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-ll, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, l-lyderabad as arbitrary, illegal, high handed and consequently direct restoration of the said plot to the Petitioner together with compensation of Rs.10
lakhs for illegal demolition or in the alternative direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3
to handover Plot No.228 of Sy.No.145 in SS Colony, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad by removing the road/drainage or order payment of market value thereof unde" the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SAI BABA
Gounset for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI C-BUCHI REDDY
Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 &7 ; -
Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI L.MALLAMPATI
Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : -
The Court rrrade the following ORDER
IN TTTE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRTT
TITION No-34
of2014
05th February, 2026
Between:
Paleti Linga Rao
...Petitioner
The Government of Telangana,
rep. by its Secretary,
Municipal and Administration,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 8 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
L The present writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "...to isstte u vvrit pru-ticulurl-t, r.tnt in lhe nttttu.e o.f l.llRIT OF, MANDA^4US tlecluritry thc ttctiott o.f' tht llesponclents in dcmolishing rlrc stnrcttu'cs ttntl disltossessiug lhe pctitictner .fi'om tlrc prcnises bcuring t-l.No.t62M/75/A in Sy.No_143, sitttqted udjucr:rtt to [)hanna Redd.v (]olony, phase_il, I:ISdernagcu', Kukatpull.v, I-l1,dr,.r,rracl as urbitrarv, iilegal; high handecl ancl consequcntb,, clircct restoratictrt o.f tlte saicl plot to tlrc Petitioner togethe r v.ith contpensation o.f Rs-10 lakhs./br illegal demolition or tn the alternattve direct and
SCR,J W.P.No.34772 of 2014 the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to handover Plot No.228 rtf fy.No. 145 irt SS Colonv, Hydernagctr, Kukatpall.l', f{ytlcrabud. bv rentoving the road/drain(Ige or ortlcr pa.vm(tttl o.l'tnarkcl t,aluc thcraoJ utclcr the provisirtrts of' tlrc I-untl ilcquisitiott Act...."
2. Ileard Mr.Sai Baba, learned counsel representing petitioner as well as Mr.K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Mr.C.Buchi Reddy, leamed StandirLg Counsel for Housing Board. Perused the record.
3. llhe gist of the case is that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of House No.16-2-M175lA, situated in Survey No.143, admeasuring 200 square yards, adjacent to Dharmareddy Colony, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, now falling within the limits of GHMC, Hyderabad. He asserts that he acquired title to the said property througtr a gift settlement deed executed by his wife, who had earlier purchased the property from its original owner.
4. Il is contended that the A.P. Housing Board had acquired land in Survey Nos.143 and 144 to an extent of Ac. 18.25 guntas from one Mr.K.seetharam Reddy at Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, for the purpose of forming Dharmareddy Colony phase-Il. / I
SCR,J 141P.No.34772 of 2014 The land so acquired is stated to have a natural slope towards the eastern side. As per the Housing Board layout, two roads terminate at Plot Nos.228 and 223, situated in Survey No.l45 on the eastern side of Dharmareddy Colony. These plots belong to Satyanarayana Swamy Colony, which, according to the petitioner, has no connection with the Housing Board layout.
5. The residents of Dharmareddy colony Phase-[I allegedly faced difficulty due to obstruction caused by the said two plots, which impeded the natural flow of rainwater and drainage water. Consequently, they filed o.S.No.2l8 of 1996 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, West & South, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar, seeking removal of the obstruction and permission to lay a road and drainage. The suit, filed between the Dharma Reddy Residential Colony Plot Owners Association and Loknath Rao and Shanker Naik, was ultimately disposed of by way of a compromise decree entered into by the parties. As per the understanding arrived at therein, alternative arrangements were to be made without dispossessing private landowners.
SCR,J W.P.No.34772 of 2014
6. It is further contended that the wife of the petitioner had purchased the subject property after due verification of revenue records, and thereafter transferred the same to the petitioner. He also applied fbr regularization of the plot under the Layout Regurarization Sche,me (LRS) on 04.09.200g and paid the requisite charges, including an initial amount and a subsequent balance amount upon intimation by the authorities. The said application, however, remains pending consideration
7. while so, it is alleged that on 3t.05.20r3, the respondents, withcut issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearirrg, unlawfully entered the subject property and demolished the structures existing thereon. subsequentry, on 03.06.2013, the petiti.ner was forcibly dispossessed from the premises bearing H-No- 16-2-Ml7s/A, in sy.No.l43, situated adjacent to Dharma Reddy colony, Phase-II, Hydernagar, Kukapally, Hyderabad, with trre assistance of police personnel, on the ground that the land in question constituted open space. It is contended that such action is arbitrary, illegal, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as well at; constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-4 of the constitution of India. The pfrtioner thereafter fired the present
\ SCR,J l4/.P.No.34772 of 2014 writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging his alleged dispossession and demolition of the premises, and seeking restoration of the plot along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the alleged illegal demolition or in the alternative direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to handover Plot No.228 of Sy.No.145 in SS Colony, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad by removing the road/drainage or order payment of market value thereof under the provisions of Land Acquisition AC in the interest ofjustice.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the relief sought involves disputed questions of fact and title, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, and that the petitioner should seek remedy before a competent civil Court.
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannor be granted in a writ petition under Article 226, as the matter involves disputed questions relating to title, possession, and alleged illegal demolition, which require proper evidence and adjudication and it cannot be \ I undertaken in a writ petition.
SCR,J |V.P.No.34772 of 2014
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petir:ioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court by filing a suit for the reliefs claimed. There is no order as to costs. IUiscellaneous petitions, pending if znY, shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER , High a \ro \ . .t.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. SA GJP ) Two CD CoPies \p,
HIGH COURT DATED:0510212026
ORDER
WP.No.34772 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ...' ,i/!,.'. l:) ,J
R s I
A
u:lh * *