Dismissed¶57

Hina Gopal Khetawat v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2026WA/169/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Writ Appeal No.169 of 2026, decided 12.02.2026 (Aparesh Kumar Singh CJ and G.M. Mohiuddin J): appeal by Hina Gopal Khetawat against order dated 25.11.2025 in W.P.No.35866 of 2025 directing District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar to decide on Addakal Gram Panchayat report under Sections 92 et seq., Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018, regarding alleged encroachment on drainage slab at Addakal village; apprehended coercive steps rejected; two notices unanswered; proceedings not interdicted; appeal dismissed without costs; I.A.No.3 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC (suspension) closed.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous applications pending (including I.A.No.3 of 2026) stand closed. ¶57

Hina Gopal Khetawat Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous applications pending (including I.A.No.3 of 2026) stand closed.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings directed by the writ court — respondent No.2 taking a decision on the report of respondent No.4 (Addakal Gram Panchayat) under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 — ought to be suspended or interdicted in the writ appeal, the appellant having apprehended coercive steps pursuant to the impugned order.

¶54

Court's answer

No direction for coercive steps was found in the impugned writ court order; instead, pursuant to that order two notices had been issued upon the appellant, against whom the allegation of encroachment stands, and she had not responded to them.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The Court saw no reason to interdict the proceedings being conducted by respondent No.2 as per law, i.e., the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018; the appellant was expected to cooperate in the proceedings, failing which the official respondent would be at liberty to take a decision in accordance with law in a time-bound manner.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (under clause 15, Letters Patent) dismissed. The appellant, Hina Gopal Khetawat, challenged the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.35866 of 2025, whereby the writ court directed respondent No.2 (District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar) to take a decision on the report of respondent No.4 (Addakal Gram Panchayat) in accordance with Sections 92 et seq. (range end and chapter numeral illegible in source) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, within one month, in response to respondent No.5's complaint of encroachment on a drainage slab. The Bench found no direction for coercive steps in the impugned order, noted that two notices issued to the appellant remained unanswered, and declined to interdict the proceedings under the Act, expecting the appellant's cooperation, failing which the official respondent could decide in accordance with law in a time-bound manner. Appeal dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

I I. I I I I I I I

¶2

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 169 OF 2026

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against the Order dated 25-11-2025 Passed in WP No 35866 of 2025 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Hina Gopal Khetawat, W/o: Gopal Khetawat, Aged about 45^years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-29, Addakal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Panchayat Raj Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶15

The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

¶16

The Mandal Panchayat Officer, Addakal^{Mandal, ft/ahabubnagarDistrict,} Telangana

¶17

Addakal Gram Panchayat, AddakalVillage and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangaira, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary.

¶18

C Sandhya Rani, Wo: Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 50^years, Occ. Govt. Service, R/o H. No 3-28, Addakal Village and Mandal, Mahabu bnagar District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to}

¶22

suspend the, operation and effect of the order dated 25.11.2025 made in W.P.No.3586(; of 2025, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. BHAGATH SAIN

¶24

Counsel for ttre Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MS. SHAZIA PARVEEN GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶25

Counsel for tl're Respondent No.4: SRI R.S. SUMITH RAJ

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶27

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

TN THE HIGI.I COURT^{tr'OR THESTATF] ()!- TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶29

.I-H[" IION'RT,T, T}IE CHIICF .I[]STT cF' SRI AP AIII.]SH KIIMAR SINGH ANt)

¶30

THII HON'BI,E SII.I ICE G.M^{i,IOt{ITIDDIN}

¶31

WRIT APPEAL No.l69 of 2026

Dated: 12.02.2026

Between:

I[ina Gopal Khetawat

...Appellant

and

'['he State of Telangana, Pauchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, l'[1,'derabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, and 4 others.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

JUDGMENT:

¶40

Learned counsel Sri B.Bhagath Sain appears for the appellant.

¶41

Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned Governtnent Pleader fbr Panchayat

¶42

Ra.i and Rural Development Department, appears for respondents

No.l to 3

I I i : : ; i I I I

Sri Pradecp Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for Gram I)anchar ats, appr'ars fbr resporrdent No.-l

¶47

Lcarned counsc:l Sri I'}.Shashidhar lleddy, representing learned counsel Sri Sunrith l{aj, appears for rcspondent No.5.

¶48

Rcspondent No.5 in W.P.No.3-5866 of 2025 is rhe appcllant hcrein g,rcstioning the irnpugned order dated 25.1I .2025 passed in the said rvrit petition. rvlierebl' the learned r,vrit court directed respondcnt No.2 to lakc a clccision on thc report of respoudent No.4 - Addakal Grarn Pa rchayat. in accordance rvith the provisions of Sections 92 to 9.t o['Chapt:r-[V ol'thc Telangana Panchayat Rai Act,2018 (hereinafter ref,errcd tl as. "thc Act"), u'ithin a pcriod of one month frorn the date of receipt of a copl' of'the ordcr.

¶49

J'he u,rit petition rvas preferred by respondent No.5 herein lor a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to remove or demolish the illegal constructi,rn rnade by encroachment on the drainage slab b1, the appellant herein on the subject piece o['land. The learned writ court did not get irto the rnerits ol'the nlatter, instead mandated the offrcial respondcni.s to act in accordance with law i.e., the relevant provisions of the Act.

¶50

¶51

¶52

, I I I i ;l .l .l il ii ii I ii

¶53

¶54

fhe appellant apprehends coercive steps based upon the irnpugned order. we do not find any such direction issued by the learned rvrit court. In [act. it has been brought to our notice that pursuant to the ordcr of'the leanred rvrit courL. trvo notices have been issued upon the appcllant, against wliorn the allcgation oIencroachnrent is there. which have not becn responded.

¶55

we. therefore, do not lind any reason to intcrdict the proccedings

¶56

bcing conducted by" respondent No.2 as per larv i.e.. the Act. Needless to say, the appellant should cooperate in the proceedings, otherrvise, respondent No.7 would be at liberty to take a decisicln in accordance rvith law in a tirne-bound manner.

¶57