Disposed

Smt. B. Krishna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025WP/28160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed interference by the Tahsildar with construction of her house under a building permission order. The Government Pleader undertook that due procedure would be followed. The court directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner or disturb construction, subject to lawful action for any violation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 not to dispossess petitioner or disturb construction per building permission; liberty reserved to take action for violations; no costs; pending IAs closed.

Smt. B. Krishna Kumari Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28160 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. B Krishna Kumart, W/o Sri Ramesh^{Kumar,Aged about 55 years, Occ} Household, Rl/o Flat No. 50'1 , Krishnaveni^{Emerald, Rukminipuri Colony, A.S} Rao Nagar, Kapra, Medchal - lt4alkaigiri^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Prl. Secretary' RevenueDepartment,} T.S., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal^{[,4alkajgiri District, Shameerpet.}

¶14

The Tahsild ar, Kapra Mandal,^{IVledchal Malkajgiri District.} 4. The Greater Hydbrabad Municipal^{Corporation,Kapra Circle -1, L.B Nagar} Zone, Represented by its Deputy Commissioner.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularly one in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus pleased to declaringthe action of the 3rd} respondent in interfering^{with the constructionof the petitioner's residential house} in Plot bearing No.25 admeasuring^{318 sq. yds., in Survey No. 76 situatedat} Doctor's Colony, Cherlapally Old^{Village, Kapra[\rlandal, MedchaltMalkajgiri} District, as illegal, and arbitrary^{and consequently direct the respondents not to} interfere with the^possession and^{enjoyment of the Plot bearingNo 25} admeasuring 318 sq.^yds., in^{SurveyNo.76 situated at Doctor's Colony,} Cherlapally Old Village, Kapra Mandal,^{Ivledchalt,4alkajgiriDistrict}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cr cJmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL i may be pleased to issue direction to directing the respondents not to interferr. rvith the possession and enjoyment including in construction of the residential trc use in plot bearing No.25 admeasuring 318 sq. yds., in Survey No. 76 situatr:l at Doctor,s Colony, Cherlapally Old Village, Kapra firlandal, Medchal Malkajgirr t)istrict, pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVAS RAO pA I {WA, SC FOR GHMC

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS'TICIi K.LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.28160 OF 2025

¶25

ORAL ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel fbr the pctitioner', Sri L.Ravincler,, learned Assistant Governmcnt Pleadcr krr Revcttue and Sti Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learnecl Standing Counscl tor^respondent No.4

¶27

Pctitioner herein is clairnir.rg that she is tlrc absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring^{Ac. 14.32gurttas ilr Sy.No.76,} situated at Cherlapally Village, Ghatkesal^{Manda[,RangaRccldy} District. She has obtained Building l'ernrit Order,^datcd 09.01 .2025 for construction ol'ground lloor.^{Slre has constructcd} otre rooln and not^yet constructed^{contltound wall. In the} nreanwhilc, respondent No.3 is intcrt-ering with the^possessiou of the petitioner and trying to^dispossess lrel^{fl'om the subject} property without follolving duc proceclure laid down uudcr larv. Challenging the said action ol respottdcut No.3,^petitioner llled llrc plescnt rvril petil ion.

I ,t

"!-:

'l)

whe.cas. lear,ed Assista,t Goverrr,r,:rr prcadcr. 1.<, Rcvcuuc, on instr.uctions, woulcl submit that rcsp rrrclcnt No.-l will fbllo*'thc rrrrc,rrccriu'c raid dowrr undcr raw rr: br-e taking any actron trgitinsl thc pelitioner hercin

¶32

I, t^c Iiglrt of t.e said .iscussion, this ,\r.it l)ctitiorr is disposcd ol' rlircctirrg respondcnt No.3 not tc tlispossess thc I)ctttr()r1ct. liorn (hc subject pr.ooerly and nof l) c]isturb thc corr:lrucliorr ,,1 tltc llct itiorrg. irr pursuarrt lo thc Ilrrilding per.rnil Orclcr'. clatccl 09.07 .2025 of rospondent No.4. Ht)! L- /er. pctitigner. s.all ,rccccr u'it^ trre const'uctio, in accordanc. ivith trre said buildirr-s Pct'rnission by fbllowing clue procedur.e Ii irl down urcler law r-[. c'cr' lrris o.crcr wilr not ,recrudc rcspo.rr<.rI Nos.3 und 4 [o take actiorr asainst thc petitioner., il. any vi.. lirtion. Thcre slrall bc rro ordcr. as to costs.

¶33

As a scclr-rcl thcr.cto, misccllaneous petitions. i.. rlr_v. pencling in thc Wr.it [)ctilirin shail stancl closcd.

¶34

SD/.P I'ONNA KRISHNA Aflsl S.I.I\NT REGISTRAR i\ \ ,TRUE COPY// \ riricTtoN oFFrcER

¶35

,L -(

¶36

To, 1. The Pnncipal Se,irerary. Revenue Department, T.S., Sec'i.,t,rriar, Hvderabad 2. The District Coller tor. tVedchal Malkajgiri District, Shame,..p et.

¶37

3 The Tahsildar, Kapra lvlandal,^{IVedchal Malkajgiri} District. / 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater^{Hyderabad [,4unicipal Corporation, Kapra /} Circle -1 , L.B.Nagar Zone

¶38

1. One CC to SRl. V. V .RAMANA,^Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶39

1. One CC to sRl. sRlNlvAS RAO^{PACHWA,SC FOR GHMCIOPUCI} B. Two CD Copies BM GJP\u

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

<sup>DATEDt1710912025

¶42

ORDER

¶43

WP.No.28160 of 2025

¶44

13 Ctr :t6
.1i\ ),.
".ir ''i ,'- r
-. -i ''

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

Lo u
\bl

Smt. B. Krishna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Krishna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunitha Pittie Vs The State of Telangana

Bandari Anjaiah @ Chakali Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Mohammad Khasim Vs The State of Telangana

Begari Shamma Vs The State of Telangana

Pandala Narsimha Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Bommagani Rajaiah , Yendapalli Rajaiah Vs Mr P Sampath