Disposed

Manchikatla Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2026WP/22858/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a construction permit granted by the Ramagundam Municipal Corporation to Respondent No. 8 on land recorded as prohibited property, alleging violations of municipal laws and constitutional provisions. During proceedings, the Municipal Corporation issued a speaking order in compliance with a court direction. The High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, vacated the interim stay order, and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the speaking order dated 14.08.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; interim stay order vacated; petitioner at liberty to challenge the speaking order dated 14.08.2026

Manchikatla Satyanarayana Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 22858 OF²⁰²⁶

¶9

Between:

¶10

Manchikatla SatyanaraYana,^S/o. Late Kistaiah, Aged about^{63 years, Occ:} Business, R/o. H.^{No.'19-8-290,} Laxminagar, Godavarikhani,^Peddapalli District, Telangana State^{- 505 209}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep, by Principal Secretary (MA & UD) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶14

The Commissioner and^{Director ofMunicipal Administration, 640'} A.C.Guards, HYderabad

¶15

The Director, Town^{and Country Planning, 640,A.C.Guards,Hyderabad}

¶16

The Regional Director,^{Commissionerof Municipal Administration,Kuda} Complex, Hanamkonda,^Warangal

¶17

The District Collector,^{Peddapalli District}

¶18

The Additional^{Collector (Local Bodies), Peddapalli District'}

¶19

The lvlunicipal^{Commissioner, RamagundamMunicipalCorporation'} Godavarikhani,^{Peddapalli District}

¶20

Mallela Siva^{Parvathi, W/o. Nagi reddy,Age about 43 years'Occ:} .House

¶21

wir", R/o. H.No.1g_8_109, Laxminagar, Godavarikhani, peddapalli District

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that} .in^the circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe pleased} t,o i..r" an appropriate^{writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{declaring the actionof the Respondents moreparticularly the} nesponOent No.7,^{insanctioningtheconstructionpermitvide} No.000B/RAMG/SWBP/2026dt.o1.04.202-6toRespondentNo,E,inthelandwhichis

¶24

recorded as Prohibitecl Property and for not considering, the representation dt. 23.03.2026 submitted t,y the Petitioner and the directions issued by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, vide Lr.F{oc.No.9388841 20261 K1 , d1.18.04.2026, 21.05.2026 and 19.06.2026, Lr. Roc. 198412026(540143) dt. 06.05.2026 and Memo Roc. No.315/20261A3 dt.29.O4.2026 lo conduct inquiry for taking appropriate action against the illegal corrstruct permit sanctioned vide No.0008/RAMG/ SWBP/2026 dt.01.04.2026 to Resp,rndent No.8 in Sy No.596 situated in Jangaom Village, under Ramagundam Municipal Corporation area, Peddapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, Violation of Principles of Nature Justice, Violative of provisions of the Telangana Municipalilies Act,2019 besides the provisions of the Telangana State Building Permrssion A,pproval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020 and violations of Art.^'14, 2'1 ,and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the impr,rgned construction permit No.0008/RAMG I SWBP12026 d1.01.04.2026 sanctioned by the Respondent No.7 to the Respondent No.8 in land recorded as Prohibition Property, situated in Sy No.596, Jangoan Village, under Ramagundam Municipal Corporation area, Peddapalli District.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

¶26

Petition under Iiection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supprort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the impugned construction permit No.0008/RAMG/SWBP/2026 dt.O1 .O4.2026 sanctioned to Respondent No.8 and direct the Respondent No.7 authorities to stop the construction be ng carried out by the Respondent No.8 in land recorded as Prohibition Property, situated in Sy No.596, Jangoam Village, under Ramagundam Municipal Corporation area, Peddapalli Distirct.

¶27

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶28

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 receive the documents filed with this lnterlocutory Application as Additional documents in the above Writ Petition

¶29

Counsel for the Pr:titioner: SRI VEERA SAVAN CHAKRAVARTHY DARA

¶30

counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FoR MUNlclpAL ADMlNlsrRATloN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶31

Counsel for the R.espondent No.5 & 6: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶32

Counsel for the Flespondent No.7: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDRA

¶33

Counsel for the Ftespondent No.g: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

I t

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.22858 of 2026

¶39

(cNR No.HBHco1o4703o2026)

¶40

Dated: r5.O9.2026

¶41

Between

¶42

Manchikatla Satyanarayana

¶43

,..PETITIONER

¶44

And

¶45

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Depattment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and oth ers

¶46

..,RESPONDENTS

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

Mr. K. Venu Madhav, Iearned counsel for the respondent No.8, furnished copy of speaking order vide Notice No.GU477|TPSIRMC|2O26 dated 14.A8.2026, issued by the respondent No.7 - Ramagundam Municipal Corporation in compliance of order passed by this Court daled U.07.2O26. The same is placed on record.

¶49

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of as it has been rendered infructuous. Interim order dated 1,7.07.2A26 shall stand vacated. However. it is made clear the^petitioner is at liberty to challenge the speaking order dated 14.OA.2026.

¶50

!r-

¶51

)

¶52

The mis:ellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶53

closed. There shail be no order as costs.

¶54

SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT EGIST R

¶55

//TRUE COPY//