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.

Smt. Payyavula Vasantha Vs Smt. Garepally Aruna — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Telangana HC
2026
Smt. Payyavula Vasantha Vs Smt. Garepally ArunaSmt. Payyavula Vasantha v. Smt. Garepally Aruna

Dismissed¶64

Smt. Payyavula Vasantha v. Smt. Garepally Aruna

Telangana HC8 Apr 2026WA/370/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal WA.No.370 of 2026, Telangana High Court, 08.04.2026; appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Single Judge order dated 10.03.2026 in W.P.No.7156 of 2026; demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 set aside; fair hearing directed; appellant alleged proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied on by writ petitioner was a fabricated document; appeal dismissed as withdrawn without costs; liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings; miscellaneous applications closed; parties: Smt. Payyavula Vasantha v. Smt. Garepally Aruna, State of Telangana, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Commissioner Narsingi Circle; suspension petition styled 'section isl cpc'; counsel: T.Bala Mohan Reddy, L.Ravichander (Sr.), Akkam Eshwar, V.Jayasree (AGP), K.Laxmaiah (SC).

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn without costs; appellant granted liberty as permissible in law to pursue appropriate proceedings; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Why is it important?

In view of the appellant's submission that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner was a fabricated document, the instant writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. ¶46

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn without costs; appellant granted liberty as permissible in law to pursue appropriate proceedings; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal filed by respondent No.4 of W.P.No.7156 of 2026, aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's direction setting aside the demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 and permitting fresh orders after fair hearing, could proceed.

Court's answer

In view of the appellant's submission that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner was a fabricated document, the instant writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant may have the liberty, as is permissible in law, to pursue appropriate proceedings.

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (WA.No.370 of 2026, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 08.04.2026 by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin) was filed by Smt. Payyavula Vasantha, respondent No.4 in W.P.No.7156 of 2026, against the learned Single Judge's order dated 10.03.2026 setting aside a demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 and directing the authorities to pass fresh orders after giving the writ petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner and referred to in the impugned order was a fabricated document, and sought leave to pursue appropriate proceedings. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as withdrawn without costs, leaving the appellant at liberty as permissible in law; pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. No precedent was cited or engaged with.

A

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

oF 20

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 1olo312o26 passed in w.P.No.7156 ot 2026 and pass on the file of the High Court.

Smt- Payyavula . ,Vasantha, _Wo. P. Kishan, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Businefs, R/o. Villa No. P5S R.S Project,^pead Valley, High Tefision'Road, Balaji Colo-ny,Near old Age home, Nizbmpet, Kukatpally, n46Ocfrat - Matka;giri Dishict - 500085.

LLANT/RESPONDENT No.4

ENI.]

9mt. Gar-epg]l.y {1u1a, W9.Q. Srilivas, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, Wo. H. No. 1-571N1!, Masid Bianda, Kondafur Viilage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

The State of T its Pri nicipa I Administration ),^Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Cyberabad Municipal Corporatio n CMC, Narsingi, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Rep. by its Commiss toner.

The Commissioner, Narsingi Circle, Sherlingampally Zone, Cyberabad

Mun icipal ration (CMC).

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.'t To 3

Petition under section isl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7156 ot2O26.

Gounsel for the Appellant: SRI T REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI L.RAVICHANDER, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI AKKAM ESHWAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MPCL ADMN,& URBA,N DEV Counsel for the nt No.3: SRI K.LAXMAIAH, SC FOR MPGL Counsel for the Responde nt No.4:^..

Tlra r^^....+ E-l.r- - t-t. -,^.

IN'tiHE HrGH couRT FoR fnp srATE oF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

EE^{HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KTIMAR} SINGH AI\D

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT APPEAL No.370 of 2026

DATED: 08.04.2026

Between:

Smt. Payyavula Vasantha

... Appellant

AND

Smt. Garepally Aruna and 3 others.

Respondents

JUDGMEJ\T:

Mr. f. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. ,-. Ravichander, learned Senior counsel represents Mr. A. Eshwar,

learned coursel for respondent No.l.

t.

Ms.^'V. Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department appears for respondent No.2.

Mr. k.. Laxmaiah, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appears for respondent No.3.

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.4 in the writ petition bein.g aggrieved by the impugned direction whereby, the learned writ

{ t

Court while setting^{aside the notice for demolition dated 02'03'2026,gave} liberty to the^{respondentauthoritiestherein to pass fresh orders after giving} fair opportunity^{of hearing to the writ petitionerwithin a stipulatedperiod'}

However, during^{the course of hearing,learnedcounsel for the} appellant submits^{that the proceedingdated 11.04.2019relied upon by the} writ petitioner and^{referredto in the impugned order is a fabricated document} which persuaded^{the learned writ Court to set aside the impugned notice'} Therefore, he grays^{for liberty to the appellantto approachthe learnedwrit} . .'^{.t.*' i t...,' -"..}

Coyin ah^{appropriat8 prqceeding.}

[n view of the^{above, the instant appealis dismissed as withdrawn'} t",' The appellant^{may havethe liberty as is permissiblein law.}

Miscellanedus^{applications, if any pending, shall standclosed'}

SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD
DEPUTY REG

,/TRUE COPYII

OFFICER
UC]

To

One CC to SRI T.BALA MOHAN REDDY,

One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate 3. One CC to SRI K.LAXMAIAH, SC FO R MPCL 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MPCL ADMN & URBAN h Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5 Two CD Copies

PSK.

TKS

*:.

i t \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810412026

JUDGMENT

WA.No.370 of 2026

t eRT$C s
o
6
22 hPfr 2w
t' :
*
Da>-,.ran *

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

ry

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ appeal filed by respondent No.4 of W.P.No.7156 of 2026, aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's direction setting aside the demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 and permitting fresh orders after fair hearing, could proceed.medium confidence¶41
The court held
In view of the appellant's submission that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner was a fabricated document, the instant writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶46

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶7
Code of Civil Proceduresection isl cpc¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 10.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7156 of 2026, which set aside the demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 and gave the respondent authorities liberty to pass fresh orders after affording the writ petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing within a stipulated period.¶18
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (learned Single Judge) · 10.03.2026
Prior proceeding
Demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 issued by the respondent authorities was set aside by the learned Single Judge, who gave liberty to pass fresh orders after giving the writ petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.¶43
Prior proceeding
During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner and referred to in the impugned order was a fabricated document which persuaded the learned writ Court to set aside the impugned notice; counsel therefore prayed for liberty to approach the learned writ Court through appropriate proceedings.¶44

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Smt. Payyavula Vasantha¶28
T.Bala Mohan Reddy
respondent
Smt. Garepally Aruna¶31
L.Ravichander (Sr.), Akkam Eshwar
respondent
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad [name reconstructed from OCR-garbled text]¶13
V.Jayasree
respondent
The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation (CMC), Narsingi, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, rep. by its Commissioner [name reconstructed from OCR-garbled text]¶14
K.Laxmaiah
respondent
The Commissioner, Narsingi Circle, Sherlingampally Zone, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation [name reconstructed from OCR-garbled text]¶15

Coram

AI extract

Aparesh Kumar Singh (Chief Justice)member¶5
G.M. Mohiuddinmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 8 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 28 Mar 2026
Case no.: WA/370/2026
CNR: HBHC010193162026
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh G.m. Mohiuddin
Disposal: WITHDRAWN
Case type: Writ Appeal

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Aparesh Kumar Singh G.m. Mohiuddin

K. Ganesh Vs Commissioner cum Appellate Authority
7 Apr 2026
M. Ranjeesh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana
7 Apr 2026
M/s.Sathavahana Associates Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
7 Apr 2026
Maagoi India Vs The State of Telangana
8 Apr 2026
M/s. Anjaneya Kirana Merchant Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer
8 Apr 2026
Devendra Surana Vs Union of India
8 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. Payyavula Vasantha v. Smt. Garepally Aruna, WA/370/2026 (TEL), decided on 8 April 2026.

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

Letters PatentClause 15
Code of Civil Proceduresection isl cpc

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 10.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7156 of 2026, which set aside the demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 and gave the respondent authorities liberty to pass fresh orders after affording the writ petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing within a stipulated period.High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (learned Single Judge) · 10.03.2026
Demolition notice dated 02.03.2026 issued by the respondent authorities was set aside by the learned Single Judge, who gave liberty to pass fresh orders after giving the writ petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.
During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceeding dated 11.04.2019 relied upon by the writ petitioner and referred to in the impugned order was a fabricated document which persuaded the learned writ Court to set aside the impugned notice; counsel therefore prayed for liberty to approach the learned writ Court through appropriate proceedings.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Aparesh Kumar Singh (Chief Justice) and G.M. Mohiuddin

Parties & counsel