Disposed

Geetha Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2025WP/36702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition alleged municipal officials were interfering with her unauthorisedly constructed floors without due process while her regularisation application under Sections 455A and 455AA GHMC Act was pending. Court directed the Commissioner to decide the application within six weeks and ordered status quo on the property meanwhile, without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider the regularisation application dated 29.11.2025 within six weeks; status quo maintained on the subject property till then; no costs.

Geetha Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,^THE FIRST DAY^{OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEB.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 36702OF²⁰²⁵

¶8

Between:

¶9

..Geetha Devi, Wo.Sri Sangaramj!^{Choudhary,Aged abo-ut41 years,} OccBusiness, R/o. Plot^{No.120/Part,H-No-24-123112'1,Swaroopnagar'} Venkateshwara Temple^{Colony, Uppal' Hyderabad'T5-500039'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal} Administration and-Urban^{Dbvelbpment Department' Secretariat, at} Hyderabad, TS.

¶13

z. itie Creater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad,} TS. Rep. by it Commissioner.

¶14

S. The Odputi Commissioner,^Circle-2, .Uppal,^{GHMC, Hyderabad'TS} +. The Asiistint City Planner,^{Ctcle-Z, Uppal, GHMC, Hyderabad, TS'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article²²⁶ ot^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{order or direction more particularlyonein} the nature of writ of^{Mandamusdeclaring the action of the Respondentsmore} particularly Respondent No.3 and 4^{in interfering withthe Petitionersproperty} without following due^{processof law and without consideringthe Petitioner's} Regularization Application^{dt.zgt11t2O25,under section 455Aand 455AAof} GHMC Act, 1955,^{which is pending before Respondent No.2, as illegal,arbitrary,} unauthorised violation of^{Article 21} ,^{14 and 300A of constitutionof lndia,} besides violation of^{principlesof natural justice and Consequentlydirectthe} Respondent No.3 and^{4 not to interfere with the Petitioners property by following} due process of law and^{by consideringthe Petitioners Regularization Application} dt.2gl11t2)25, under^{section455A and 455AA of GHMC Act, '1955,whichis} pending before ResPondent No.2.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to interfere with the P:litioners property by following due process of law and by considering the Petjtioners Regularization Application dt.2911112025, under section 455A and 455AA of GHMC Act,^'1 955, which is pending before Respondent No.2, pending dispcsal of the above writ petition Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Courisel for the Petitioner: SRI C.H.JAYAKRISHNA CounSel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN 6, IJRBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

!N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.36702 OF 2025

¶24

DATE OF ORDER: 01-12-2025

Between:

Ms. Geetha Devi.

.... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and three others.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with her possession over the property bearing Plot No.120/Part, H.No.2-41231121, situated at Swaroopnagar, Venkateshwara Temple Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad, without following due process of law and without considering her application dated 29.11.2025, under Section 4554 and 455AA of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,

¶33

¶34

1955, as illegal,^{arbitrary and in violationof Articles14,21and} 3004 of the Constitution^{of lndia}

¶35

The^{petitioner alongwith her brother claimto be absolute} owners of the^{aforesaid subject property having ptlrchased the same} under sale deed^{bearing documentNo.144911of 2022 daled} 26.09.2022 from^{the original owners Mr. Nalluri Viiaya GopalRao'} Mr. Nalluri Sri^{Harsha, Smt. Nalluri Amulyaand {lmt Nalluri Jaya} Vijaya, who obtained^{buildingpermissiorr vide permit} No.210577110382/GHMc/2o22dated19.09.2022forconstructionof Stilt for^{parking + 3 upper floors in the subject property'}

¶36

lt is stated that after^{purchasingthe property,the petitioner} constructed additional^{4th floor and pent house in the sth floor' ln} order to^get the^{unauthorised construction regularised,the petitioner} submitted application^{dated 29.11.2025,under Section4554 and} 455AA of the^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955} (for short^'GHMC Act'), to respondent^{No.2 reqtrestingto regularise} theunauthorisedconstruction.However'thereisinterferenceof respondent Nos.3 and 4^{in the structures raisr:d by the petitioner} even when her^{regularisation applicationis pend ng'}

¶37

¶38

Heard Mr. C.H. Jaya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Srinivasa Rao pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and perused the material available on record.

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that apart from unauthorised 4th floor and pent house in the Sth floor, the petitioner has deviated from the sanclioned plan and constructed the cellar also.

¶40

However, without expressing opinion on merits, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's regularisation application dated 29.11 2025, under Sections 4554 and 455AA of the GHMC Act, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. pending consideration of the said regularisation application, status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the subject

¶41

property. No order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶43

this writ petition stand closed.

¶44

S M.JAWAHAR REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// i

SECTION OFFICER

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administrati and Urban Development Department, Secretariat;at Hyderabad, State of Telangana, TS. 2. The Qommissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hvderabad, TS.

¶49

¶50

3 The Deputy Commissiorer, Circle-2, Uppal, GHMC, Hyderabad, TS. 4q The Assistant City^{ptanner,_C1cte} Z, Uiipai, GHMC, HjoeraOaO, rS one CC to SRt C.H JAYAKRTSHNA AE;;;ril ioEi ;il

¶51

6 Two CCs to Gp FoR MCPL ADMN a uneAN-dEvlirgh Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

B7 1wo ONE CD CopiesCC tO SRI SRiNIVASA RAO PhCUWN, SC FOR I]I]MC [OPUC]

¶53

PSK.

¶54

PSK 4t

CC TODAY

SIGH COURT

DATED:01 11212025

f 1

ORDER

WP.No.36702 of 2025

itr LA ,I
\J

"$ I
oU. .=t
r1. <br>\ ri
!:i
,(
) ,99 q :i
', ia;

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

$x'
)
w
,

Geetha Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Devi 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

Ms. P. Mounika Vs Mr. Ch. Rakesh

K.Jayasimha Reddy Vs Sri Santosh Kumar IAS

Kalaga Balakrishna Murthy Vs Karamcheti Srirama Chandra Murthy

Dr.N.Madhav Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Dr.N. Madhav Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. N. Madhav Rao Vs The State of Telangana