Telangana High Court
WP/35549/2015 of M. Prabhu Kumar, Vs The Municipal Commissioner, on 3 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35549 OF 2015 Between: M. Prabhu Kumar,, S/o. late M. Ambaji, Aged
[ 348s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 35549 OF 2015
Between:
M. Prabhu Kumar,, S/o. late M. Ambaji, Aged about 65 years, Occ- Retired employee, Plot No.78, Suraksha Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad - 500050, Ranga Reddy District.
PETITIONER
AND
1 . The Municipal Commissioner,, Sadasivapet Municipality, Medak District, Telangana State.
2. The State of Telangana,, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Telangana Secretariat, N.T.R. Marg, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
3. Palligonda Laxmaiah,, S/o. Manaiah, Aged about 40 years, occ. Business, H.No.3-5-38, Edlabazar, Sadasivapet town-502 291, Medak District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under klicle 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 order or direction or writ, more particularly in the nature of wit of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Proc.No.Gl/979/2013
on d1.27 -11-2013 is taken different stand against the Previous same 1st respondent in issuing Proc.No.A2l354/1980 on dt.9-7-1980 for alleged Schedule B property will be as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Easementary Act and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 and 1 9( 1 [g) of the Constitution of lndia and direct the Respondents to demolish compound !rz I on the street road has been blocked vide Schedule B property, in the interest of iur;t ce.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WP MP. NO: 45662 0F 201s)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High cou( rr ry be pleased to direct the respondents not to issue any permission to mnstruct a r further construction in connection with alleged schedule B Property all that the olrr n 20'feet Street Road situated at Edlabazar, under Sadasivpet Revenue & Municrr rl area, Medak District and bounded by North by: neighbour's Houses bearing No.:! 5-41, 3-5-30 South by:
Petitioner's House No.3-5-42lA of Schedule-A property, ResP rndent House Nos.3-5- 26, 3-5-27 & 28 of Schedule-C and D properties and other nr,i thbor Houses East by:
2O'feet Wide Road, West by: 20'feet wide Road herein ber; decision of during the pendency of the above referred writ petition, in the interest r f justice or pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems -it and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. O. RA"rA VEER
Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI S.R. VISHNU MUR'l t ly, REPRESENTING SRI KRII; {NA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. cp FOR MCPL ADI N-URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI P.VENKAT REODY.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALI\ CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35549 of 2O15
DATE: o3.02.2o26
Between:
Sri M.Prabhu Kumar
...Petitioner
AND
The Municipal Commissioner,
Sadasivapet Municipality, Medak District, Telangana 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:
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings No.Gl1979 12013, dated 27.11.2OL3, by taking a different stand from that of the very sarne respondent No.l in issuing proceedings No.A2l35al 1980, dated 09.07.1980, with regard to the alleged Schedule 'B' property, as arbitrary, illegal, contrar5r to the provisions of the Easementaql Act and violative of the Fundamental Rights.
Heard Sri V.O.Raja Veer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.R.Vishnu Murthy, learned counsel representing
Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, Iearned counse appearing for respondent No-1, and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, l:arned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. The main contention of the writ peti : lner is that the respondents issued proceedings No.A2/35' /1980, dated O9.O7.1980, with respect to the alleged SchedLle 'B'property. Subsequently, the complaint of the Writ Petition: - is that he has approached Lokayukta, pursuant to which tr t enquiry was contemplated. Basing on the said enquiry, ri spondent No.2 seems to have conducted a specific enquiry as I r the complaint of the writ petitioner, wherein it was contr: rded that the unofficial respondent had questioned the road/p. )perty in issue. Pursuant to the directions of Iearned Lokayu 1 ta, vide order dated 13.09.2013, notices 'rvere issued to all c,r rcerned and a hearing was concerned and hearing was ;onducted on 19.11.2013 by the respondent.
4. During the said enquiry, the res tondent No. 1 categorically stated that, upon inspection it was trund that the property situated next to the pathway leading to respondent no.3, Sri Palligonda Laxmaiah, does not have anv sanctioned or approved municipal road connecting the two roa: s and there is J also no ProPosed locus plan road as contended by the complainant. It was further observed that there was variation in the property description, which showed discrepancies, ald the sarne was also considered by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, SangareddY.
5. However, the application/complaint was rejected by respondent No.l, by order dated 27'll'2o13' It is further alleged that the petitioner had filed a suit in O'S'No'7O of 2OO3 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy' seeking declaration and mandatory injunction' However, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge' Sangareddy vide judgment and decree dated l7 '06 '2OO9 in O'S' No.70 of 2003, and it appears that no appeal was hled by the writ petitioner against the said judgment'
6. In the light of the above circumstarces' the contention of the petitioner that the unofficial respondent No'3 has constructed a house by encroaching upon the road is not tenable. Further, the suit frled by the petitioner having been dismissed and the same having attained hnality due to non-filing of any appeal, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained'
I ,!qi
7. In that view of the matter, the preser t writ petition is devoid of ments and deserves to be dismisse<1 A,ccordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no or<l rr as to costs Miscellaleous applications, if any are per( ing, shall stand closed c AS ( LP.PONNA KRTSHNA { ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 'l . One CC to SRt. V O RAJA VEER, Advocate I
2. One CC to SRt KRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate o loPUCl
3. Two CCs to Gp FOR MC retansana niiyo"-r';#:A1i?'N-URBAN DEV,Hisi )ourt ror the Stare or
4. One CC to SRt p VENKAT REDDy Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies DAN/PMK qk l
HIGH COURT DATED: 0310212026
ORDER
WP.No.35549 of 2015 O u-, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1; ..!ii.Qt' ti ii \\ i c\- \ \ L! t,, /t erPv \: I A ,\) _i . ( .-: '2 It: Ir' --i -l a.l @ q,1V