Disposed

Tulchamolla Balavardhan Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2025WP/39936/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, tenants of seven shops facing vacation notices from the Gram Panchayat pursuant to court-ordered action for unauthorised construction, challenged the notice as violating natural justice. The court granted fifteen days to vacate and directed respondents to act according to law, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Fifteen days' time granted to petitioners to vacate the shops, after which respondents may take action in accordance with law.

Tulchamolla Balavardhan Reddy, Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENW FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^SMT JUSTICE^{T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PET^ITION NO:^{39936 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Tulchamolla Balavardhan Reddv,^{S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age.45years, Occ'} Cement Trading Business,^{At'Sy.No.406of Vennached Village' Gandeed} VanOat, UanaU6obnagar^District, -Ryo. Vennached Village, Gandeed Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^District.

¶9

Mahaboobnagar^District.

¶10

2 giti SriniraS, S/o. Dasharath, Age.42 years' Occ. Tent House Business, At svltio.aOO of Vennached Villaqe,-Gandeed^{Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict,} R7o. Vennached Village,^{GandeedMandal, Mahaboobnagar District'}

¶11

J rfri eiiwjrai, S/o.-Bilakistaiah,^{Age. 43 year9,.} Q9c,^{Footwears[9p,.At} su r.ro.+oo ot Vennached Villaqe. Ga;deed^{Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict,} Rio. H.No.2-67 Vennached^{-Viltage,Gandeed Mandal,Mahaboobnagar} District.

¶12

4 fr,fof,A bnanO Pasha,^{S/o. Abdul Haffez Age.45 years,Occ. Bakery s!op' At} S, t lo +OO of Vennached Villaqe, Gandeed^{Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict,} nio. H.No.Z-SZ Vennached^{-Village, Gandeed Mandal,Mahaboobnagar} District.

¶13

District.

¶14

5 Vadla 'Hvmavathi. W/o. Pandu Ranga, Age.41 years, Occ. Textile s!op' At s"r.t. atjO of Vennached Villaqe, Gandeed^{Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict,} nio. H.tto S-Sg Vennached^{-Vitlage,Gandeed Mandal,Mahaboobnagar} District.

¶15

6 rti|-r.iii6sn, S/o. Sataiah,^{Age. 39 years, occ. Bakery shop,} f!^s1,tl9 J.0.0 9t VennacneO Village,^{Gande-ed Maridat, Maha.boobnagarDistrict,R/o' H No 2-} '1 1 Vennached Viilaoe. Gandeed Mandal, l\ilahaboobnagar District.

¶16

7 ViO'ri Sai-krmar, S%.^{panOuRanga Chari, Age.40 ye-rs, Occ. Wood works,} at Sv trto.+OO oi Vennached^{Village' Gandeed Mandal, Mahaboobnagar} Oistd6i,^- nyo. H.No.3-98^{VennZchedVillage, Gandeed Mandal,} Mahaboobnagar District.

¶17

...'ET'T'ONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana,^{Repby its Principal Secretary (PanchayatRaj and} Rural Development), Secretariat'^Hyderabad.

¶20

The District Collector,^{Mahboobnagar District}

¶21

The Di.strict Panchayat^{Officer, Mahboobnagar District.}

¶22

+. fne^pincnayat Se6retary,^{VennachedGr-mpanchayat,VennachedVillage,} Ganded Mandal,^{Mahboobnagar District.}

¶23

5 M. S;i kffi;i Slo.^{ttt Narsiri'gRao,Aged about 26 years,R/o H No 1-103/1,} Rangampet Village, Gajwel^{Mandal,Siddipet District.}

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lncli I praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Writ, Order or Direction, particularlr one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned notice dated 2311212025 issued by the 4th respondent, by directing the petitioners individual sev;n shops situated in Sy.No.406 of Vennached Village, Gandeed Mandal, Mahabc cbnagar District, and declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary ar I violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. and consequently lrant interim stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 2311212025

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the c r lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ry be pteased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice date j 23t12t2O25, issued by the 4th respondent, with a direction to vacate the busines ; premises pertaining to petitioners i. e., seven shops situated in Sy-No.406 r,f Vennached Village, Gandeed Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. PREM KUMAR REP SRt. Vt. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR PANCHA,, rT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. PRADEEP REDI /,

¶31

SC FOR GRAM PAh(:HAYAT

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:--

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶35

AT HYDERABAD

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICB T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO.39936 OF 2025

¶38

DATED .24.12.2025

¶39

Between

¶40

Tulchamolla Balavardhan Reddy and 6 others

¶41

... Petitioners

¶42

AND

¶43

The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development), Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others

¶44

... Respondents

¶45

ORDER

¶46

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the notice

¶47

d1.23.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4 by directing the petitioners to

¶48

vacate the subject shops so that action can be taken under Section I [4 of

¶49

the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

¶50

The petitioners claim to be tenants of the respective shops and thcl havc invested some money to establish the subject shops. It is

¶51

W.P. No.19936 o12025

¶52

¶53

stated that if action is taken for demolition of the shc,; s, the petitioners would suffer ireparable loss and it is further stated t 1 rt without giving any show-causc notice to the petitioners, the impu: red notices have been issued to vacate tl-re shops and therefore, it ir in violation of principles of natural .justice.

¶54

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Gran^)anchayat, on the other hand, has pointecl out that action is being tak: I pru'suant to the directions ol this Courr in W.P.No.9583 of 2024 dt : 0.04.2025 and in Contempt Case No.2430 of 2025

¶55

A copy of the order in W.P.No.9583 of 2024 is also filed and on perusal of the same, this Court finds that this Court h: s given directions therein as under

¶56

' 6. Ilat'ing rcgord to the rival contenlions and t e mdterial on record. lhis^('rnit linds thut the ownership or oth,nvi:e of. lhe pelitioner t tnother und the respondents No.6 and 7 rr er tha suhject plots is not irt i.sstrt' be.fitrc this Court. The issue i whether the respondent.s l'o.6 orul 7 ure making construction tt rlt or without permission .[t-om the concerned authorities. It is tl ( stand of the authorities tfut the upplications of the respondent \ t 7 und other par.sons xho huyc mude opplications for building ptt nission in the subject lattd have bean re.jcctctl by the authorilies antl 'he same hat.e also bacn uploaded und lhc respondenls No.6 and 7 t t : aware of the said rajection order.s. When lhere is no permisstr. t .fbr making

¶57

W.P. No.39936 of 2025

¶58

¶59

construction, the official respondents ought to^{have laken immediate} action of slopping the construclion, instead^{lhey seemto have} remained mute specldtors. The^respondents are^{thereforedirected to} issue nolices to the unfficial respondenls and^{take actionin} accordunce v,ith law under Section^I l4^{of the Panchoyat Raj Act.The} action sh(tll be taken within a period of^{heo (2) monlhs} from^{the date} of receipt of a copy of this order.^{This order is withoutprejudiceto} any of the contentions raised by^{either parliesaboutthe lille or} ownership of the property.^"

¶60

The respondents therefore have to^{issue notices to the unofficial} responderlts therein and then take action

¶61

Learned Standing Counsel for the^{respondent Gram Panchayat} submitted that notices have been^{issuedto the persons who have made} the iltegal construction and also^{to the tenants of the shopsin order to} enable them to vacate the shops^{and that due processis beinglollowed} as directed by this Court in^{W.P.No.9583of 2024.}

¶62

In view of the above and^{having regard to the fact thatthe} petitioners are only tenants and^{have claimcdto have investedsome} money and also require some time^{to find alternate place and vacate the} shops, in order to^{protect theirinterestalso, this Courtgrants fifteen (15)} days time to vacate the subject^{shops and thereafter, the respondentsare} -- dirccted to take action in accordance^{with law.} /I

¶63

W.P. No-39936 of2025

¶64

¶65