Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

K.Srinivas Vs Hmda,Metropolitan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Home
Telangana HC
2025
K.Srinivas Vs Hmda,Metropolitan Commissioner,Hyd,AndK.Srinivas v. Hmda,Metropolitan Commissioner,Hyd,Andanot

Dismissed¶34

K.Srinivas v. Hmda,Metropolitan Commissioner,Hyd,Andanot

Telangana HC4 Sept 2025WP/38635/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P. No.38635 of 2014, decided 04.09.2025 by Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty. Petitioner K. Srinivas v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and State of Telangana. Mandamus sought under Article 226 for release of approved layout plan, Survey Nos.876 (Part), 878, 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Ac.13-19.50 guntas; interim application I.A.No.1 of 2014 (WPMP No.48372 of 2014) under Section 151 CPC. Dismissed as infructuous on petitioner's counsel's submission that cause does not survive; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed. No cases cited; no ruling on merits.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous on the submission of petitioner's counsel that the cause does not survive; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

Why is it important?

Upon learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous, the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. ¶34

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous on the submission of petitioner's counsel that the cause does not survive; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to release the approved layout plan in respect of Survey No.876 (Part), 878 and 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Ac.13-19.50 guntas) was illegal, and whether respondent No.2 ought to be directed to release the permission to the petitioner.

Court's answer

Upon learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous, the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

All miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Telangana High Court, single Judge, Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J., 04.09.2025) filed in 2014 under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare illegal the respondents' (HMDA and State of Telangana) non-release of the approved layout plan in Survey No.876 (Part), 878 and 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Ac.13-19.50 guntas, and to direct respondent No.2 to release the permission. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive and had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed. The merits of the grievance were not adjudicated; no precedent value on the legality of the non-release of the layout plan arises from this order.

A

[³³⁸³ ]

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

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PET|T|ON NO: 38635 OF 2014

Between:

K.Srinivas, S/o Late K.llaiah aged about 37 years, resident of Flat No.403, Krishnaveni Heights, Rukminipuri Colony, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 62.

..PETITIONER

AND

1 Hyderabad [,4etropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Tarnaka, Hyderabad

2 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Hyderabad

.,,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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of [Vlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the approved layout plan in in Survey No.876 (part) S7B and 880 (part) situated at Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac. l3-'1 9.50 guntas to the Petitioner as illegal, null, void and arbilrary and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to release the permission to the Petitioner.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 48372OF 2014)

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the approved layout plan in Survey No.876 (Part) 878 and BB0 (Part) situated at Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal,

i -: ;:..- 1'?-7

Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.13-19.50^{guntas to tr; Petitionerpending} disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA^PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V.NARASIMHA^{GOtl )' SC FORHMDA}

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP^{FORMCPL ADMN& I IRBAN DEV}

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

i t, i

l \ j ;

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION No.38635 of 2Ol4

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

"Declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the approved la)'out plan in Survey No.876 (Part) 878 and 88O (Part) situated at Korremula Viltage, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.13- 19.50 guntas to the petitioner as illegal and prays to direct the respondent No.2 to release the^permission to the petitioner."

2 Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learncd Standing Counsel for respondent

No.1 present.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cause in the present writ petition does not suwive and the same has become infructuous.

Recording the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to COStS.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

Sd/-G.JYOTHI ISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 cl One CC to SRI K.DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [O

2 One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC]

J Two CCs to GP FOR I\ICPL ADIVN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4 Two CD Copies (r

BSR

PMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912025

ORDER

-.:--.
ri
t4 i,:if !ffi
(--

WP.No.38635 of 2014

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

AS INFRUCTUOUS,

WITHOUT COSTS

(A

rd L\ zj-

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents' failure to release the approved layout plan in respect of Survey No.876 (Part), 878 and 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Ac.13-19.50 guntas) was illegal, and whether respondent No.2 ought to be directed to release the permission to the petitioner.¶30
The court held
Upon learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous, the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶34

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶14
Code of Civil Procedure151¶16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of the respondents in not releasing the approved layout plan in Survey No.876 (Part), 878 and 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Ac.13-19.50 guntas.¶30
Respondents (Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and State of Telangana)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
K. Srinivas¶8
Sri K. Durga Prasad
respondent
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority¶11
Sri V. Narasimha Goud
respondent
State of Telangana¶12
GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV

Coram

AI extract

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishettyauthor¶26

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 4 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 15 Dec 2014
Case no.: WP/38635/2014
CNR: HBHC010024072014
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Laxmi Narayana Alishetty

Smt. Aruna Ben, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
3 Sept 2025
Banda Balanarasimha, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
3 Sept 2025
B. Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana.rep by its Principal Secretary to
3 Sept 2025
Vanchanagiri Bixpathi S/o. Sarangapani Vs The State of Telangana
4 Sept 2025
Sri. Muppavaram Madhusudhan Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana
4 Sept 2025
Golkonda Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana
4 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

K.Srinivas v. Hmda,Metropolitan Commissioner,Hyd,Andanot, WP/38635/2014 (TEL), decided on 4 September 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Civil Procedure151

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Action of the respondents in not releasing the approved layout plan in Survey No.876 (Part), 878 and 880 (Part), Korremula Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Ac.13-19.50 guntas.Respondents (Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and State of Telangana)

View full history

Bench / Coram

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty

Parties & counsel