Disposed

Smt Surati Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Oct 2025WP/29891/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging notices by the Gram Panchayat to stop house construction. The Court held that the notices were show-cause notices, not demolition orders, and allowed construction to proceed subject to verification by the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; construction allowed to proceed pending verification of sites by respondents.

Smt Surati Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[^321s ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction).

¶4

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos: 29886,29888 & 29891 0F 202s

¶8

W.P. No. 29886 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Surathi Komala,. D/o Surati Venkatesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ.. Businessr Rl/o Marikal Vi age and Mandat, Nariyanpet Oistric( ftfingJna State

¶11

...PET|TIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'l . The State of Telangana, rep._by prl Secretary, panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretary, if yOeraOJO, Telangana State.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Narayanpet District, Narayanpet, Telagana State.

¶15

3 The District Panchayath Officei, Narayanpet, Telanlana Stale.

¶16

Marikal Gram Panchayath, Rep by iti pinchayath"Secretary, Marikal Village and Mandal, Narayanpet Distriat, Telangana State.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of fi/andamus by setting aside the impugned common notice No.Gp/65/2025, d|..2210912025, issued by the 4th respondent consequenlly direct the 4rh respondent not to interfere with petitioners house construction work lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass interim suspension of the impugned common notice No.Gp/65/2025, d|..2210912025, issued by the 4th respondent duly direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with petitioners house construction work till disposal of the main case

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KONDA SRINIVAS

¶20

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

¶21

RA"' RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY,

¶22

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶23

¶24

W.P. No: 29888 0F 202s

¶25

Between:

¶26

Shiva Anil Kumar, S/o Shiwa Somaiah, Aged about 32 r ears, Occ. Business, R/o lvlarikal Village and Mandat, Narayanp6t Districr, Te i "nr"?..B,Efir,Oa

¶27

AND

¶28

1 . The State of T_elangana, Rel:. byPrl Secretary, panchay lth Raj and Rural Development Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkaisecretaql Hyderhbad, Telangana State.

¶29

The Diskict Collector, Narayanpet District, Narayanpet, I :lagana State.

¶30

The District Panchayath Officer, Narayanpet, Teianlana itaie.

¶31

Marikal Gram Panchayath, Rep by its Panchayath Secre ary, Marikal Village and Mandal, Naraanpet District, Telangana Stdte.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more pa(icularll, tne in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugn€( common notice No.GP/65/2025. dt. 22l1gl2\25, issued by the 4th respo dent consequenily direct the 4rh respondent not to interfere with petitioner hous( construction work lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oi cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to pass interim suspension of the impugned common notice ,lo.Gp/6 SI2O2S, dt. 22togl2o25, issued by the 4th respondent duly direct the 4ll respondent not to interfere with petitioner house construction work till disposal c the main case

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KONDA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR PANCHAyTI I

¶36

RAJ RURAL DEVELOI MENT

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. PRADEEP REDD'/

¶38

SC FOR GRAM PANCI AYAT

¶39

¶40

W.P. No: 298S1 OF 2025

¶41

Between:

¶42

Smt Surati Laxmi, Wo Surati Venkatesh. Aoed about 60 years, Occ. House hold, R/o Marikat Village and Mandat, t{arbya-npet Oistiict, Telangana State

¶43

AND

¶44

...PETITIONER

¶45

The State of Telangana, rep. by prl. Secretary, panchayath Rai and Rural uevetopment uepartment, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretary, Hyderabad, I elangana State

¶46

The District Collector, Nalqyanpet District, Narayanpet, Telagana State.

¶47

The District Panchayath Officei, Narayaniet, Teianlaria Staie.

¶48

ft/arikal Gram Panchayath, Rep bJ it3 pinchayath-Secretary, Marikar Vi age and Mandal, Narayanpet Distriit, Telangana Stite.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

Petition under Articre 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned common notice No.GP/65/2025, dt.2210912025, issued by the 4th respondent consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with petitioner's house construction work lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶51

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 issue interim drrection to the 4th respondent and its officials not to interfere with the petitioners house construction work, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶52

¶53

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the⁽ ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to permit the petitioners to change the material papers .e. 1) proceedings No.819iBPl2025, dl.:2817 12025, 2) proceedings No.820/BFl 2025, dt.:281712025, 3) proceedings No.82118P12025, dt. :281712O25, 4) proceed r gs No.B22lBP/2025, dt. :281712O25, 5) proceedings No.830/BP/2025, dt.:2817|,L r25, 6) proceedings No.831/BP/2025, dI. :281712025, 7) proceedings No.832/8 t' 2025, dl.:281712O25, 8) proceedings No.833/BP/2025, dt.:2817 /2025, 9) proceedir ls^{No.834/8P/2025,} dl.:281712O25, 10) proceedings No.835/BP/2O25, dt.:2817 '2025 filed in WP No.29886/2025 to file in this case

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KONDA SRINIVAS

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR PANCHAIi .T RAJ RURAL DEVEL(] 'MENT

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. PRADEEP REDtf^', SC FOR GRAM PANI] {AYAT

¶58

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶59

@ . . ...f/ .:4, i. ,.at:ir

¶60

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICET. MADIIAVI DE\II} WRIT PETITI^{ON Nos.2988 629A8A&2989t oF 2o2s}

¶61

COPMMON^ORDER:

¶62

In these writ^{petitions, petitioners are challengingthe notices} dated 22.09.2025^{issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings} No.GP/65/2025^{requiring the petitionersto stop the construction} and to submit^{the documentsrelating to said construction to the} Gram Panchayat^{within two days,as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶63

Since the^{issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and} the same, all^{are heardtogetherand are disposed of, by wayof this} common order.

¶64

Heard the learned^{counselfor the petitioners'learned} Government^{Pleader lor PanchayatRaj appearing for respondent} Nos.1 to 3 and^{Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing counselfor} Gram Panchayat^{appearing for respondent No'4'}

¶65

It is submitted^{that the petitioners have obtained permission} for making construction^{and in the sanctioned plan' it is clearly} shown that^{the width of Gram Panchayat road itself is 50" ft} whereas in the^{impugned notice it is mentionedthat the petitioner} has to leave^{50' ft gap from the middle of the road to NH-167'It is} submitted that these^{notices are thereforeillegal, arbitrary and} unconstitutional and^{the respondentsought to have issuedshow}

¶66

¶67

cause notices to the petitioners and consider th( ir explanations before instructing the petitioners to stop the constrr ction. I-earned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance or. the decision of this Court in W.P.No.21O53 of 2Ol9 dated 24.(tl t.2019 for this proposition.

¶68

Learned Standing counsel appearing for Grarr Panchayat, on oral instructions, submitted that the petitioners a re encroaching the path beside the National Highway and are maki rg construction and therefore, impugned notices have been given He submitted that notices dated 22.09.2025 are show caur; : notices and explanations of the petitioners dated 24.O9 .2( 25 would be considered.

¶69

Having regard to the rival submissions ar C material on record, this Court obsenres that on receipt of a corr rlaint from the local residents, respondent No.4 has issued notices dated 22.09.2025 to the petitioners. This Court hnds th rt they are not notices for demolition but are issued only requirinl; the petitioners to submit the documents relating to their constr rctions to the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the notices dated 22.Ct<. .2025 shall be considered as shou, cause notices ald the petitione,r s have already submitted their explanations thereto. The res p rndents shall consider the same and also the docurnents submitte 1 by them and

¶70

E !!,!!qr :^..., nl .'!

¶71

¶72

thereafter, proceed in^{accordance with law. Since the petitioners} have permission to make construction,^{they may proc;edwith the} construction tili the respondents veriff their^{sites and ifthe} authorities find that the^petitioners are^{making constructions in} violation of permission Branted^to them,^{they are at liberty to take} action in accordance with^law.

¶73

WitJ' the above direction, these writ^{petitionsare disposedof.} There shall be no order as to costs.^{Miscellaneousapplications,if} any, pending, shall stand closed.

¶74

SD/. AH ED ABDULLAH KHAN ISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal Secretary,^{PanchayathRaj ald Rural Development Department'} Dr. B.R. RhOeOfar Sei;retary,^{Hyderabad, Telangana State'}

¶79

z. itre--Oistriit Collector,^{Naraybnp6t District, Narayanpet, Telagana State'} 5. f ne Oiiirict Panchayath^{Officei, Narayanpet, Telangana State'} +. One CC to SRl.^{KONDA SRINIVAS' Advocate} tOPqCL s. i*o CCs to GP^{FORPANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT,High} - Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶80

o;;Ca t; sRt^{K PRADEEP REDDY, STANDINGcouNSELFoR GRAM} PANCHAYAT [OPUC]

¶81

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911012025

.1:1;- Sh
()o
i 2 JAN 2O2E
.a)
*
A\l.,aTCH',i,

¶88

COMMON ORDER

¶89

WP.Nos.29886 ,29888 & 29891 OF 202li

¶90

DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIC NS WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

I
a'

Smt Surati Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Surati Laxmi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanakam Shankar, Vs The State of Telangana

Navaj Chhotushaha Fakir Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Malgireddy Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Ravikiran Vs The State of Telangana

Atika Muthaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Dandempally Naresh Vs The State of Telangana