Disposed

K.Subbaraju, and Another, v. Prl.Secy., M.A. and Ud., Hyd., and 2 Others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025WP/40265/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to restrain demolition of two flats in K.S.R. Complex. The Corporation stated it had already demolished unauthorized structures in the stilt and fourth floors pursuant to earlier court orders, so no cause survived. Petitioners did not dispute this. The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition closed as cause did not survive.

K.Subbaraju, and Another, Vs Prl.Secy., M.A… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸³¹

¶2

HIGH COU^{RT FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANAATHYDERABAD} (special Original Jurisdictioⁿ⁾

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE ELEVENTHDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶6

w7 PE I OF 4

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Subbaraiu, S/o K.^{SatyanarayanaRalu'^ Aged about 55 years' . Occ} ' bY'i;,;;:HbEe'/e,'il,rrc, in?lii tii, k'p'n e' col5nv' Kukatparrv'^Hvderabad

¶9

K. Hanuma Kumar^{Raju,, S/0 K' Subbaraiq'AgeOabout 30 years'.Occ} ' DrJililt,'iyo'6'ril6, rt71l[l'ini." iri, aF'H'a bbloiv'^{Kukatparlv' Hvderabad'}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State ofTelangana,^{Represented by} its Principal Secretary,^MuniciPal Administration^{Department, Secretariatts} uilding, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Greater^{Hyderabad MunicipalCo-rporation,} .Re.presented^{by its}

¶14

cdi',iiil"iJ""ilc.C iorpt"i' iank Birnd Road' Hvdeiabad'

¶15

3 TheDeoutvCommiSsioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation,Circle XlV, Kukat'pally,^{Ranga Reddy District'}

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ,^{orderor direction,moreparticularly one in the natureof a} Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe actionof the respondentsto demolish Flat No'} 301 and Flat^{No.302 in the third floor of K.S.R. Complex situatedat Plot No'457'} Phase Vl, K.P.H.B.^{Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabadas being illegal' arbitraryand} contrary to^{the provisions of the Constitutionof lndia' HMC Act' 1955 andin} violation of^{principles of naturaljustice and consequently todirectthe} respondentsnottotakecoercivestepsagainstthepetitionerswithoutissuing noticeandfollowingdueprocessoflawandorpassanyotherorder(s)asthis Honble court^{may deemfit and proper in the circumstancesof the caseandin the} interest of^justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 50502 OF 2014)

¶19

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 direct the respondents not to demolish Flat No.301 & 302 in the third floor of K.s.R. complex situated at Plot No.457, Phase vl, K.p.H.B. colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad during the pendency of this Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.HAMSA DEVINENI

¶21

counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FoR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV

¶22

counsel for Respondents No.2&3 : SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, sc FoR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LA>(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

No. of

: 11.

Between

K. Subbaraju and^another.

¶29

.Petitioners

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana,^{IleP. bY its} Principal Secretary,^{Municipal Administration Department,} Secretariat Building,^{Hyderabad and 2 others'}

¶32

...ResPondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This writ^{petition is filed seekingfollowing relief:}

¶35

"To d"eclare the action^{of respondents in takingsteps for} d.emolition of Ftativos.3ol^{& 302,3rd} floor^{o/K.s.R.Complex,} situated at Ptot^{No.457, Phase VI,K'P'H'B'Coloruy'} Kukatpally, Hyd.erabad,^{as illegal, arbitrary and contraryto} prouisions of constitution^{of India and} for^{consequential} relief."

¶36

0 il

¶37

Ms.Hamsa Devineni,^{learned Counsel for petitionersand Sri} K.Ravi Mahender,^{learned Standing Counsel for respondentNos'2} and 3 are present.

¶38

Learned Standing Counsel^{for respondent Nos.2 and 3 on} instructions would submit^{that respondentsCorporationhas}

¶39

¶40

demolished the unauthorized structures raised in stilt floor and 4th floor of the subject property, as per the orders of this court dated 27.11.2o14 in w.p.Nos. r23o7 and 33336 of 20r4, therefore, cause in the u'rit petition does not survive. copies of photographs evidencing demolition of unauthorized structures of the subject property are placed on record.

¶41

4 Learned counser for petitioners did not dispute the same

¶42

5 Recording the above submission, this writ petition is closed.

¶43

There shzlll be no order as to costs

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalr stand closed.

¶45

P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Ms.HAIVSA DEVINEN|, Advocate. [OpUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶51

one cc to SRI K.RAVTNDER MAHENDER, sc FoR GHMC. topucl

¶52

Two CD Copies.

BSK

ot {

HIGH COURT

DATED:11 11212025

ORDER

s lrt
7
(-)
(-) O B JAN ?t?t
+,'
-k f'
trqT

¶60

WP.No.40265 of 2014

¶61

CLOSING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

+lrlLb

¶63

ii l: r,l, :fi.. :

K.Subbaraju, and Another, v. Prl.Secy., M.A. and Ud., Hyd., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subbaraju, and Another, v. Prl.Secy., M.A. and Ud., Hyd., and 2 Others

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

Vojjala Karunanandam Vs The State of Telangana

Gedam Tukaram and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

M.a.Majeed Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ganta @ Sarva Jyothi

Gurram Bixam, S/o. Narayana,Aged about 48 years, Vs The State of Telangana

Srinivas Machidi Vs Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Private Limited