Suniganti Vittalaiah Vs The State of Telangana

suNlGANTl VITTALAIAH, S/o. S. Venkataiah Aged about 57 years, occ. Dy. 9arpanch^{and Ward No. 2 - Member, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No. 1-45,} Urella Village, chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶11

2 Nallola Praveen Kumar, S/o. N. Pentaiah Aged about 30 years ,^Occ.lMember -_ Ward No.1, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No. 1-2011, Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶12

3 Kavali Srinivas, S/o. (Late) Kavali Ramaiah Aged about 42 years, Occ. Member - Ward No. 4, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No. 2-31, Uiella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶13

4 Karna Bramarambha, Wo. (Late) K. Srisailam Aged about 65 years, Occ. lvlember - ward No.S, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No . 2-97, ur-elta village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶14

5 Bandla Majula, Wo. Bandla Ravinder Aged about 37 years, Occ. Member - Ward No. 6, Urella Grarnpanchayat R/o. H.No. 1-412, Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana -501503

¶15

6 Begari Manjula, Wo. B. Balwanth Aged about 36 years, Occ. Member - Ward No.8,^{Urella GrampanchayatR/o. H.No. 1-3, Urella Village, ChevellaMandal,} Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶16

7 Dutha Lakshmi, Wo. D. Krishna Aged about 40 years, Occ. Member - Ward No.g,^{Urella GrampanchayatR/o. H.No.5-4, Mondivagu Hamlet Village,} Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶17

8 Mohammad Khaja Miya, S/o. Mohammad Babu Sab Aged about 78 years, Occ. Member - Ward No. 10, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No. 5-16, Mondivagu Hamlet Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶18

I Karni Shiva Prasad, S/o. (Late) Karni Snsailam Aged about 41 years, Occ. MPTC, Urella Grampanchayat R/o. H.No. 1-781412, Andhra Bank Building, Hyderabad main road, Chevella [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501 503

¶19

10.Allori Narsimhulu, S/o. Allori Venkataiah Aged about 53 years, Occ. Cooperative society Member R/o. H.No. 3-50 ,^{Urella Village,} Chevella^Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶20

11.Guftala Ananathaiah, S/o. (Late) Fiamayya Aged about 63 years. Occ. Cooperativ_e igcie-ty t|gntqr R/o. H.No. 144, tJieta Viilage, Chevetia Mandat, Ranga Fleddy District, Telangana -501503

¶21

l2.chakali Nagamani, wo. chakali Ramachandraiah Aqed about s2 vears. occ. co-oper1live s2:iety Membgr_[/o H.No. 1-82,^-Urella Village', c#vella Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict, Telangana - S0iS03

¶22

'l3.Joshi Ashok Kumar, s/o. Venkaiah Aged about 60 years. occ. Villaoe Temore Erlq:I,Il"]!ryillage^{R/o. H.No.1-1l2lUreila Viilag6,Crreverra rvrandar, C;ri-s;} Reddy District, Telangana - 501S03

¶23

"itriSl"!fi ff Et8'h,!:if t5l!$:1'#Sf,';ff BULiBilEiti,;?,f; !;3ii',#i8l Reddy District, Telangana - S01503

¶24

15.Vadla Brahmachari, S/o. (Late) Venkaiah Aqed about 55 years, Occ. Daily wage w_crrker $/NBEGlq) R/o. H.No_ 3-43, Ureila Vifiage, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict, Telangana - 501503

¶25

l6.Bayakati Venkatamma, Wo. (Late) Balaiah Aqed about 50 years, Occ. Daily yage w^crker (IINREGS) R/o. H.No- 4-19, Uielta Viflage, Chevella Mandai, Ranga R,-.ddy District, Telangana - 501503

¶26

"ii,#iilff{..tt)',{i;tt1i!l.:ilif^{,,}3a,,ia:u::3il3eti;?,f} 3;3ii,,*x3: Keooy utstflct, I elangana . S01S03

¶27

" ii'#ft[,({F,{lig,?; 'h:[i{.'11,i:i,e',i,?,3il::'"ilSlli;?,fi;a',i:',:ig: Reddy Di:strict, Telangana - S01S03

¶28

l9.Marellah Jangaiah, s/o. (Late) Ramaiah Aqed about 50 vears. occ. Dairv wage worker (MNREGA) R/o. H.No. 1-S3/1,-Urella Village,'Chevbtta ManOi( Ranga Rerddy District, T6langana - 501503

¶29

20.Marellah Ramachandraiah, s/o. Janoaiah Aqed about 2g vears. occ Dairv wage worker (MNREGA) R/o H.No.^-1-53/1 , Ureila Viilage, 'Chevblti-Manaai, Ranga Re,ddy Diskict, T6tangana - 501503

¶30

Bandla S,attaiah, S/o. (Late) Shenkariah Aqed about 45 vears. Occ. Daitv yage w_orker (MNREGA) R/o. H.No- 1-63, Urella Village,^'Chevbtta n4anOj[, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501503'

¶31

"iilrif i1iit",{.8#';;"'tx6;i_i3:ta',,:."1ff;:,.3,{3fl il?,f i;3"1'h:i3: Reddy District. Tetangana - 501503

¶32

23.Uradi Arurra Narsimhulu, Wo. Narsimhulu Aqed about 4g vears. Occ. Ex9.arp?ncl^{UreflaGram. pglchavqtR/o. H.No]} .t -70, uiLtti Vittigej, Cheve la Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T-elangana - 501503

¶33

24.Uradi Narsimhulu, S/o. Narsimhulu Aoed about 51 years Occ. Co option member, lJrella Gram Panchayat R/o:H.No. 1_70, Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, R::nga Reddy District, ielangana - 501503

¶34

...PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and-Urban Secretariat, Khairatabad, Hydera6ad obveiopriiJni,'or. b. - S'OO OZi ii. liiu-"or,ai^{' '--} i6ii'is;n:JSirt"

¶37

2 The state of relangana, Represented by its principal secretary, panchayati B:j^gnl Frtul^{DevelopnlerI,_Pr, B. R. A-nrbedkarTelanganasfdtesecre[ariat,} Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 O22

¶38

3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District O/o. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Kongara kal-an villagb rbrahimpatnam, Telangani - sorSro

¶39

4 The Revenue Divis.ional officer, Ranga Reddy District o/o. The RDo, chevella Division, Near court, chevdila, Ranla Reddy District - 501s03

¶40

5 The Tahsildar cum Joint sub-Registrar, chevella o/o. Beside court, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District --501503

¶41

The state Election cggqrspiqn, T5rlgrngana state Represented by its secretary,.1st Floor P T c^p opp pr Euirding A c Giiards t_i[oifuprr Hyderabad - 500 004

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

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 orders particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent no. 1 in issuing the G.O.M.s No-412025, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 04-01.2025 issued under Sec 3(a) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 RAA/ Rule - 3(1) (a)&(e) of the Telangana Municipalities (lnclusion or Exclusion of Areas in/from the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules 2006 and in violation of Rule 9 and 12 of Telangana Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007 and set aside the G.O.M.s No.4/2025, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 04.01.2025 so far as Urelta Village is concerned.

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶45

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 Respondent No. 6 Nor ro CONDUCT ELECT|ONS To rHE CHEVELLA MUNICIPALITY BY INCLUDING THE URELLA VILLAGE pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt RAKESH BHUKYA

¶47

Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY,

¶48

GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 SRt SHAZIA PARVEEN, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶50

Counsel for the: Respondent Nos.3 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶51

Counsel for ther Respondent No.6: SRI PRIYANKA SINGH FOR SRI P.SUDHEER RAO, SC FOR EC

¶52

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶53

-7

¶54

t't'

¶55

IN THE HIGH COT'RT F1OR THE STATE OF TELIINGANA AT ITYDERABAD

¶56

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KT'IIIAR SINGH AT{D

¶57

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶58

WRIT PETITION No. L966 of 2o26

¶59

DATE: LO.O2.2O26

¶60

BETWEEN:

¶61

Suniganti Vittalaiah and 23 others

¶62

....Petitioners

¶63

AND

¶64

The State of Telangana and 5 others

¶65

.Respondents

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(Per Hon'ble Srf Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)

¶68

The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶69

"......to rssue an appropriate writ, order or orders partianlarlg one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issurng the G.O.M.s No.4/ 2025, Municipal Administration and Urban Deuelopmerd Department dated 04.01.2025 issued under Sec 3(a) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 R/W Rule^- 3(1) (a) and (e) of the Telangana Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas in/from the Municipalities/ Nagar Panchayats)Rules 2006 and in uiolation of Rule 9 and 12 of Telang ana Gram Panchay ats ( Declaration of Villag es) Ruleg 2OO7 and set aside the G.O.M.s No.4/2025, Municipal Administration^qnd Urbqn Deuelopment Department dated 04.01.2025 so far as Urella Village is concerned and pass.... "

¶70

The petitioners comprising elected representatives and

¶71

residents of Urella Gram Panchayat, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District contend that the merging/inclusion of the said Gram Panchayat into Chevella Municipality is arbitrary, illegal, violative of

¶72

2

¶73

governing statutory^{rules and infringes upon their constitutional} right to self-government^{enshrined in Part-lXof the Constitution of} India. The respondents^{are the state of Telangana, its functionaries} and the State^{Election Commission'}

¶74

wittr the consent^{of the learned counsel for the parties, the} Writ Petiti,rn^{is heard finallY.}

¶75

Heard, Mr.Rakesh^{Bhutrya, learned counselfor the petitioners} and Mr.E;.Venkata^{Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the} Municipal Administration^{and Urban DevelopmentDepartment for} responderrt^{No.1;Ms.ShaziaParveen,learnedGovernmentPleader} for Panch.ayat^{Raj Departmentfor respondentNo.2; Ms.Priyanka} singh, learned^{counsel representing Mr.P.SudheerRao, learned} counsei^{fc,r respondent No.6 and perusedthe materialon record'}

¶76

Factual background^{(in brief)}

¶77

The brief facts^{necessaryfor the adjudicationof this writ} petition are as^follows:

¶78

i. Pet.tioners^{are residentsand elected representatives of Urella} Village which^{was constituted as a GramPanchayatunder the} Telrngana Panchayat^{Raj Act, 1994(erstwhile Andhra Pradesh} PanchaYat^{Raj Act, 1994)'}

¶79

ii. Thzrt on o4.o^{L.2025,the State Governmentissued impugned} G.O.Ms.No.4 of^{2025 whereunderthe Urella Gram Panchayat}

¶80

..?..

¶81

has been merged/included within the limits of the Chevella Municipality (as per entry 548 of Ex.P-1). Be it noted here that the impugnecl proceedings (Ex.P- 1) though portrayed and pleaded to be G.o.Ms.No.4 of 2025 dated 04.o1 .2025, is not a Government Order, but an amendment to the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (Act No.04 of 2025l., which was published in the Telangana Gazette dated 04.01 .2025. Though the relief sought in the writ petition portrays Ex.P- 1 as G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2025, it has been construed that the challenge in the present writ proceedings is to the impugned proceedings in Ex.P-l i.e., the above said Act 4 of 2OO5 and dealt with accordingly.

¶82

iii. The petitioners allege that the merger/inclusion of Urella Village into Chevella Municipality violates:

¶83

a) Rule 3(1)(a) and (e) of Telangana Municipalities (inclusion or exclusion of areas intolfrom the limits of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2O06 (for short "2006 Rules") in terms of distance and population criteria.

¶84

b) Rules 9 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (declaration of Villages) Rules, 2OO7 (for short "2OO7 Rules") and the mandatory procedure prescribed therein for bifurcation/ merger of Villages.

¶85

zz4:z

¶86

c) Constitutional provisions in respect^{of "self-governance} under Part IX of the Constitution".

¶87

iv. The petitioners allege that though they^submitted retrrresentations on 19.O8.2O25 to the^{Governmentofficials} sta-rting from the Tahsildar^{to the Chief Ministerof Telangana} Sttrte opposing the inclusion of Urella^{Village in the Chevella} municipality, none of them were^{considered.The} pe':itioners/villagers also claim to have held^{protests for} stc,pping the merger of Urella Village into^Chevella Mtrnicipality, but to no avail.

¶88

v. The petitioners sought information under^{the Right to} Inlbrmation Act, 2005^(for short, 'RTI^{Act') whichaccording to} tht:m, revealed that no sperate demerger^{process was} undertaken for Urella Village.

¶89

vi. That left with no alternative remedy to^{the arbitraryand illegal} act:ion of the respondents in issuing^theimpugned pr<>ceedings, the petitioners are constrained to^{file the present} writ petition.

¶90

Submissions on behalf of^petitioners

¶91

leirrned counsel for the petitioners urged the^following grounds:

¶92

i. That Urella Village is situated 7 kilometers away from the Chevella Municipality, whereas Rule 3(1)(a) of the 2006 Rules

¶93

5::

¶94

prescribes that maximum distance in respect of a local body proposed to be included in the municipalit5r, should be within the radius of 3 kilonreters of the municipality. That the inclusion of Urella Village in Chevella Municipality flagrantly violated the prescribed criterion of 3 kilometers radius. That no special reasons were recorded to relax the said criteria.

¶95

ii. The mandatory procedure under Rule 9 and 12 of the 2OO7 Rules, before merging a Gram Panchayat into municipality prescribe a show cause notice/opportunity to the Gram Panchayat of showing cause against the proposal, which notice/opportunit5r was not afforded to the Gram Panchayat. No show cause notice was issued and no opportunity was afforded to ascertain the will of the villagers, which render the entire process a nullity.

¶96

iii. That Gram Panchayats are institutions of self-government under Part IX of the Constitution. The Gram Panchayats cannot be extinguished or merged in an arbitrary manner.

¶97

iv. That the abolition/merger of the Gram Panchayat cannot be done in an arbitrary manner without adherence to the prescribed procedures, as is sought under the impugned proceedings.

¶98

v. That the response received through RTI Act confirms that no demerger process to exclude the Urella Village from the Gram

¶99

l)anchayat was undertaken before inclusion of the Urella /itlage into Chevella Municipality, which is a mandatory step under 2oo7 Rules. That non-compliance of the said mandate renders the entire exercise nugatory.

¶100

vi. l'hat most of the villagers of Urella Village are agriculturists and are registered beneficiaries under VB-G RAM G (Viksit Elharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin)) erstwhile Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Ciuarantee Act (MGNREGA) beneficiaries. The inclusion of Llrella Village into Chevella Municipality would deprive them of the welfare schemes. The inclusion of the Village in the nrunicipality would lead to an increase in taxes and imposition o[ new taxes.

¶101

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

¶102

L-'arned Government Pleaders for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Panchayat Raj Department have countered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as under:

¶103

i. Tlre governing law is the Telangana Municipatities Act, 2Ol9 (firr short 'the 2o19 ActJ. That the petitioners placed reliance orr inapplicable 2006 and 2OO7 Rules.

¶104

ii. The 2006 Rules ceased to have any legal effect. Similarly, the 2oo7 Rules have no application to an action that transforms a

¶105

.': "R^"':3'TI'rT; ti,:* ,I,':,.#i#

¶106

rural area (local body) into a municipality^under a^separate, special and later enactment i.e., the 2019^Act.

¶107

iii. The impugned Act is a valid exercise of legislative^power vested in the State legislature under Action 243Q of the Constitution of India and the Telangana Municipalities act, 2OIg. The impugned amending Act is a valid exercise of Legislative power and its scope cannot be fettered by subordinate legislation framed under repealed enactments.

¶108

iv. That the Act is a policy decision taken for the purposes of Integrated Urban and Policy Development and the presumption of Constitutionality is attached to the Act.

¶109

v. That no interference by this Court is warranted on speculative grounds and untenable contentions as raised by the petitioner.

¶110

vi. That the impugned action does not infringe any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.

¶111

vii. The petitioner's apprehension with regard loss of benefits and enhancement of taxes or imposition of new taxes are speculative and do not constitute grounds for^judicial review.

¶112

Consideration by this Court

¶113

In the present case, for a proper appreciation of the controversy, it is necessary to examine the evolution of the statutory

¶114

8

¶115

frameworK^{governing local self-government institutionsin the State} of Telang:lfr&,^{p?fticularly in the context of the power to constitute,} alter or^Ir. erge^{local areas into Municipalities'}

¶116

g. For a proper^{and effective adjudication of the issues arising in} the presr:nt^{matter, it isconsideredappropriate toextractthe} relevant^{r;tatutoryprovisions,namely Section 3 and Section299 ot} the Telangana^{Municipalities Act,2019, whichhave a direct bearing} upon th(:^{question under consideration. The said provisionsare} reproduc:d hereunder^{for ready reference:}

¶117

Section3.ConstitutionandCompositionofMunicipalities

¶118

(1) The Municipality^{shall be a body corporatehaving perpetual succession} and ir common^{seal. tt can sue or be sued in its corporate name, acquire,} holdandtransferproperty,enterintocontractsanddoallthingswhich arenecessary,properorexped.ientforwhichitiSconstituted.

¶119

(2)FromthedateofcommencementofthisAct,alltheMunicipalities const,itutedundertheTelanganaMunicipatitiesAct,l965andthe MunicipalCorporationsconstituted.underTelanganaMunicipal Corprrations^{Act, 1994 shall be d'eemedtohave been constituted as} Munrcipal councils^{as specifiedin ScheduleI and Municipal corporations} as slrccified in^{ScheduleII under this Act, and the provisions of this Act} shall apply to all^{such Municipalities constituted and deemedto have been} cons:ituted under^{this Act: Provided that incases where aGram} Panchayat is already^{notified as a Municipality undersection 3-A of the} Mun'cipalities Act,^{1965,the elected body of such GramPanchayatShall} continuetobeinexistenceuntilitstermexpiresandexerciseallsuch pow€rs under the^{provisionsof the TelanganaPanchayat Raj Act, 2018'} and,:nsuchdateofexpiry,itshallbedeemedtohavebeenconstitutedas a Mu nicipalitY^{under this Act.}

¶120

(3)TheStateLegislaturemay,bywayofamendmenttothisAct'modifyor add^,rr alter schedule^{I or II of this Act so as to,-}

¶121

(a)formanewMunicipalitybyseparationoflocalareafromany Municipality,orbyunitingtwoormorelocalareasorpartofareas' or by uniting any local^{areato a part of Municipality;}

¶122

(b) include within a Municipality^{any local area;}

¶123

(c) exclude from a Municipality, any area^{comprisedtherein;}

¶124

(d) constitute any local area as a Municipality;

¶125

(e) alter the name of any Municipality;

¶126

(f) revise the boundary of municipal^area;

:I I .i i il rl

,a,

.4

dFr

. .o..

(g) describe the boundaries of the Municipality;

¶133

(h) abolish a Municipality.

¶134

Section 299 Repeal and savings

¶135

(i) On and from the commencement of this Act, the Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Telangana Municipal corporations Act, 1994 are repealed.

¶136

(2) on such repeal, the provisions of sections 8 and 18 of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 189 1, shall apply, provided that on such repeal, rules or provisions existing are not inconsistent with this Act.

¶137

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Acts referred in sub-section (l) the appointment, notification, order, scheme, form, notice, rule, or bye-law, made or issued, and license or permission granted under the Acts, shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted under the provisions of this Act, unless it is lapsed or superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, form, notice, rule or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the said provisions.

¶138

(a) The members of any council and corporation holding office at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been elected as members of that council and corporation under this Act, and subject to provisions of section 10, continue to hold office of members until the expiration of their term under the provisions which were applicable to them immediately before such commencement.

¶139

(5) Any division of the Municipality into wards, made or deemed to have been made under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 or Telangana Municipal corporations Act, 1994 and in force at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be the division of the Municipality into wards made under this Act; and the members representing the wards shall, subject to the provisions under sub-section (a), be deemed to represent them on and from the commencement of this Act.

¶140

A plain reading of Section 3 indicates that the Legislature has retained the power to include or exclude any local area within a Municipality by amendment. The said provision does not make such legislative action conditional upon the procedural prescriptions applicable to executive notifications under earlier enactments.

¶141

It is pertinent to note that historically, the Telangana region, forming part of the erstwhile Hyderabad state, was governed by the Hyderabad Village Panchayat Act, lgsl and the Hyderabad Gram -'-.

¶142

::10::

¶143

Panchayat Act, 1956. Following the reorganization of States in 1956, these r:nactments were included into the unified statutory regime under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 and, subseq-rently, the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enactecl in consonance with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which^{(lonstitutionally} recognized Panchayat Raj Institutions under Part IX of the Constitution.

¶144

L2. Upon the formation of the State of relangana in 2or4, the said enactm,rnt namely the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 continued to operate by virtue of the Telangana Adaptation of Laws order, 2014. Hou'ever, in order to strengthen decentralised rural governance and to give full effect to the Constitutional mandate under r\rticles 243 to 243-0, the State Legislature enacted the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act,2018 (Act No. 5 of 2018), thereby repealing the earlier 1994 Act. The 2ol9 Act constitutes a compretrensive code governing rural local bodies and introduces a structured three-tier system, while also making special provisions for tribal hztbitations in alignment with the Constitutional and statutory scheme.

¶145

Parallelly, urban local bodies in the composite State were governecl by the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and, in respect of certain urban agglomerations, by the Hyderabad Municipal corporations Act, 1955. In furtherance of the constitutional

¶146

'::ll::

¶147

mandate under Part^{IX-A (Articles 243-P to 243-ZG), introduced by} the 74ft Constitutional^{Amendment, the State Legislature enacted} the Telangana Municipalities^{Act, 2019. This enactment repealed the} earlier fragmented^{municipal legislationsinsofar as they applied to} the State of Telangana^{and constitutesa completeand self-contained} code governing the constitution,^{classification, alterationand} administration of Municipalities.

¶148

As borne out from^{the material on record, it is to be notedthat} the impugned inclusion^{of Urella Village into Chevella Municipality} has been effected under Section^{3 of the Telangana Municipalities} Act, 2olg. Sub-section (3)^{thereof confers legislativecompetence} upon the State to alter or^{amend Schedule-lso as to includeany} local area within a Municipality.^{By virtue of Amendment Act No.4 of} 2025, published in the Gazette^{dated 04.01.2025, Urella Gram} Panchayat has been specifically^{mergedinto Chevella Municipality.}

¶149

It is significant to note that^{the 2006 Rules were framed in} exercise of powers conferred under^{theAndhraPradesh} Municipalities Act, 1965, and similarly^{the 2OO7 Rules were framed} under the Andhra Pradesh^{PanchayatRaj Act, 1994. Bothsets of} Rules are in the nature of subordinate or^{delegatedlegislation and} derive their validity, force and continued^{operation solelyfrom the} parent enactments under which they were made.^{With the repealof} the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and^{the Andhra}

¶150

z:12:z

¶151

Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and their replacement by the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018 respectively, the very statutory source from which the said Rules emanated has ceased to exist.

¶152

It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that subordinate legislation cannot survive the repeal of the parent statute unless expressly saved, and even where a saving clause exists, such continuation operates only to the extent that the rules are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new enactment.

¶153

L7. Irr the present case, the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2or9 constitutes a comprehensive and self-contained code governing the constitution and alteration of Municipalities. Though Section 299 of the 2019 Act contains a saving provision in respect of earlier rules, such se.ving is expressly conditional upon consistency with the new statutory framework. Therefore, any rule framed under the repealed enactments which curtails, restricts, or conditions the plenary power conferred under Section 3(3) of the 2019 Act the 2006 Rules cannot be treat:d as surviving law.

¶154

similarly, Section 295 of the Telangana Gram panchayat Act, 2ol8 cc,ntains a saving provision in respect of Rules made under previous. legislation subject to inconsistency with the Telangana Gram P*nchayat Act, 2oLB. That the 2oor Rules are inconsistent with St.'ction 3 of Telangana Gram panchayat Act, 2OLg.

¶155

::13::

¶156

consequently, the 2006 and 2oor Rules, being subordinate legislations under repealed statutes and having been repealed as above cannot operate independently nor can they override or control the express legislative competence conferred under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and the Telangana Gram panchayat Act, 2or8. The said provisions are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

¶157

section 3 Declaration of a village for the purposes of this Act

¶158

(1) on and from the date of commencement of this Act, all the villages specified in Schedule VIII shall stand and deemed to have been declared as villages by the names and jurisdiction specified in columns (4), (5), (6) and (7) thereof, for the purposes of this Act.

¶159

(2) The Government may, subject to sub-section (3), by notification, amend or alter the Schedule, so as to,-

¶160

(a) form a new village by separation of local area from any village or by uniting two or more villages or parts of villages or by uniting any Iocal area to a part of any village;

¶161

(b) increase the local area of any village;

¶162

(c) diminish the local area of any village;

¶163

(d) alter the boundaries of any village;

¶164

(e) alter the name of any village;

¶165

(f) merge a village or a part of a village to any Nagar panchayat or Municipality or Municipal Corporation;

¶166

(g) remove a village from the purview of this Act;

¶167

(h) describe the area of the Village.

¶168

(3) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (2), shall be laid, in draft, before each House of the state Legislature, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprisecl in one session or in two or more successive sessions and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both the Houses agree in disapproving the issue of notification or both the Houses agree in making any modifications in the notification, the notilication shall not be issued or as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of the State Legislature.

¶169

(4) From the date of notification under sub-section (2), the Schedule VIII shall stand amended or altered; as notified.

¶170

(5) The Government may pass such orders as it may deem f,rt,-

¶171

: : l4::

¶172

(a) as to the disposal of the property vested in a Gram panchayat which has ceased to exist, and the discharge of its liabilities; and

¶173

(b) as to the disposal of an-v part of the property vested in a Gram Panchayat which has ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any local area, and the discharge of the liabilities of the Gram panchayat relating to such property or arising from such local area; An order made under this sub-section may contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as the commissioner may deem necessary, and in particular may direct,-

¶174

(i) that any tax, fee or other sum due to the Gram panchayat or where a Gram Panchayat has ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any local area, such tax, fee, or other sum d.ue to the Gram Panchayat as relates to that area, shall be payable to such authorities as may be specified in the order; and

¶175

(ii) that appeals, petitions, or other applications with reference to any such tax, fee or sum which are pending on the date on which the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist or, as the case may be, on the date on which the Gram Panchayat ceased to exercise jurisdiction over the local area, shall be disposed off by such authorities as may be specified in the order.

¶176

(6) ,a,ny decision made by the Government under this section shall not be questioned in a court of law.

¶177

Section 295 Repeal and Saving

¶178

(1):lhe Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is hereby repealed.

¶179

(2) t)n such repeal the provisions of sections g and 1g of the Telangana General clauses Act, 1891 shall apply, provided that on such repeal rules or provisions existing are not inconsistent with this Act.

¶180

(3) t'lotwithstanding the repeal of the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 1994 any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or byelaw made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the Act shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted, und:r the provisions of this Act, unless it is superseded by any app<lintment, notif-rcation, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the said provisions.

¶181

In this regard, the above legisrative history clearly shows a

¶182

deliberate transition from the earlier composite State laws to a new, indepenclent and comprehensive statutory framework under the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2org and the Terangana

¶183

:: l5::

¶184

Municipalities Act,20 19. The action impugned in the present case is taken strictly under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Since there is no challenge to the validity of Section 3 of the said Act, and in view of the Constitutional scheme contained in Articles 243 to 243-ZG empowering the State in matters of local selfgovernment, the authorit5r of the State l,egislature to include a local area within a Municipality, does not call for interference.

¶185

Furthermore, the issue in the instant case, is no longer res integra. The Division Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.25194 of 2024 and batch, by order dated O5.L2.2O24, and again in W.P.No.2943 of 2025, by order dated 17.04.2025, have examined the scope and ambit of Section 3(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. In the said decisions, it has been categoricalty held that Section 3(3) confers express legislative competence upon the State to alter or amend Schedule-l so as to include any "local area" within a Municipality. The power so conferred is plenary in character and traceable to the constitutional framework under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India.

¶186

2L. Further, it is clarified that when the inclusion or alteration of a local area is undertaken in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the 2019 Act, the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 do not govern or control such action. The field of operation of the Panchayat Raj Act pertains to rural local bodies, whereas the

¶187

:: l6: :

¶188

constituttion and alteration of Municipalities fall squarely within the statutory domain of the 2019 Act.

¶189

Ir. view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Division Benches;, the competence of the State Legislature to include a local area rvithin a Municipality under Section 3(3) of the 2o19 Act stands judicially affirmed.

¶190

Ttre 2oo6 and 2oo7 Rules, having been framed under repealed enactments, no longer govern the field and cannot restrict the exercise of power under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2olg. Consequ.ently, the distance criterion of three kilometers stipulated under Rule 3(1)(a) of the 2006 Rules, as well as the procedural requirenrents contemplated under Rules 9 and 12 of the 2oo7 Rules, cannot lrc pressed into service to invalidate an action undertaken under a subsequent and overriding legislative enactment. In view of the finding that the inclusion was effected under section 3 of the 2019 Act, the earlier Rules, having no statutory basis under the existing liamework, cannot invalidate the legislative action embodied in Act No.4 of 2025 (Ex.P- 1).

¶191

It :nay also be noted that the legislative competence of the State in rnatters of local self-government is traceable to Article 246 of the constitution read with Entry s of List II of the seventh Schedule. The pow'er to constitute, alter or include areas within local

::17::

I i

tI I

authorities falls squarely within the State's domain. The Arttcle 246

¶196

is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶197

Article 246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliameat and by the Legislatures ofStates.

¶198

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List").

¶199

(21 Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List").

¶200

(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (21, the legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "State List").

¶201

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.

¶202

Further, no material has been placed before this Court by the petitioners to demonstrate that the impugned amendment suffers from lack of legislative competence or manifest arbitrariness so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶203

Furthermore, the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the possible loss of benefits under the viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (formerly MGNREGA), or the likelihood of enhanced taxation upon inclusion within a Municipality, pertain to policy considerations and administrative consequences flowing from urban classification. Judicial review of legislative action is confined to examining

¶204

:: I8::

¶205

Ii

¶206

leg;.slative competence, constitutional Iimitations, or manifest arbitrariness. policy consequences or perceived administrative disetdvantages do not, by themselves, furnish a ground to invalidate a stirtute

¶207

Con,clusion

¶208

27' In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is satisfied that the i:rcrusion of Urera and other Vilrages into chevelra Municipality has treen effected by the State Legislature through Amendment Act No'4 0f 2025 in exercise of its powers under Section 3 0f the 'l'elan1;ana Municiparities Act' 20rg- The impugned action is traceabre to a varid statutory source and does not suffer from any jurisdictionar error, constitutionar vioration, s1 "Dy constitutional or statutcry infirmity warranfi ng interference.

¶209

28' Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶210

Ar; a sequel, miscellaneot ---, ^r'ovurrd.rreous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

¶211

SD/-S. MALLIKA RJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR

¶212

//TRUE COPYII

¶213

SECTION OFFICER

¶214

One fair copy to the HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (For His Lordship,s Kind ARESH KUMAR SINGH r) One fair copy to the HON,BLE AND