Disposed

Smt. Vetury Srilakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026WP/26503/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning an HMDA building permission granted to respondents despite a pending boundary dispute. The Court observed the issues of land survey and title verification but did not set aside the permission, instead directing authorities to consider the petitioners' complaint regarding revocation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; direction issued to respondents to consider the petitioners' complaint for revocation of the building permission within four weeks.

Smt. Vetury Srilakshmi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WP.Nos.2601't AND 26503 0F 2026

¶8

WP NO: 26011 OF 2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Nellore Annapurna, D/o Late V.Krishna Brahmam, W/o Nellore prasad, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o H.No.14l1^.19, Anawari Street Nel[ore Andhra Pradesh

¶11

2 Vetury Anjani, D/o Late V.Krishna Brahmam, W/o Ram Kumar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Homemaker, Ri/o FCI Colony, Near Modern High sthool, Stone housepet. Nellore

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Hyderabad.

¶16

The Commissioner, GHMC, repy by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.20, Rajendranagar Division, GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Assistant City Planner, Rajendranagar Circle, GHMC, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

The Commissioner, Survey and Settlement Land Records of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶20

Satish Polamreddi, S/o P.Gangi Reddi Aged about 54 years, Fl/o Villa 23, Aparna Orchards Hitex Road, lzzathnagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad -SOO0g4

¶21

M/s Evolve Projects, A Reg Partnership Firm, Having office at 4th Floor, Unit_ C, G Square, Survey No.79, Raidurgam, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana lndia. Represented by its managing partner Sri.G.Lakshmi Sidartha Reddy

¶22

FFFFIF!tF!!I7

¶23

...Respondents

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C:urt may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularl't one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nor;.1 to 5 in granting Building Permission vide File No.018701/HMDA/04595/SWBP/SKP1/2026 dated 03.07.2026 in favour of Respondent Nos.7 and 8 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, vtolative of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. clntrary to the HMDA Act and the applicable Building Rules, and consequently set as ide the said Building Permission and restrain Respondent Nos.7 and 8 from proceeding with any construction pursuant thereto until the identity and boundaries of the respective lands are determined in accordance with law.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

¶26

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 suspend the Building Permission vide FlleNo.018701/HMDtu04S9S/SWE,p/SKp 112026 dated 03.07 .2026 granted in favour of Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. B. Mayur Reddy, representing Sri. E. Pramodh Reddy

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP For Mcpl Admn & Urban Dev

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri. R. Venkatesh, Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Sri M. Sahas Reddy, AGp for Revenue

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: Sri. Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel representing M/s. Solis Legal.

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

WP NO: 26503 OF 2026

¶35

Between:

¶36

Smt. Vetury Srilakshmi, D/o Late V. Krishna Brahmam, W/o Sri V.T. Raghu Kumar, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, Fl/o 149, Bonney CT, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807 USA. Represented by Sri Tadi Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Narayana Murthy, aged about 66 years, Occ Business, Fl/ H.No. 2-2107511311 , Flat No. 104, Devi Homes, Street No.1 , Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶37

...Petitioner

¶38

AND

¶39

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶40

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶41

The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Cyberabad, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 20, Rajendranagar Division, CMC, Hyderabad

¶43

The Assistant City Planner, Rajendranagar Circle, CMC, Ranga Reddy District

¶44

The Commissioner, Survey and Settlement Land Records of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶45

Sri Satish Polamreddi, S/o P.Gangi Reddi, Aged about 54 years, Rl/o Vtlla 23, Aparna Orchards Hitex Road, lzzalhnagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084

¶46

[M/s Evolve Projects, A Reg. Partnership Firm, Having office at 4th Floor, Unit C, G Square, Survey No.79, Raidurgam, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Represented by its managing partner, Sri.G.Lakshmi Sidartha Reddy.

¶47

..RESPONDENTS

¶48

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in granting Building Permission vide File No.01870'1/HMDA/0459s/SWBP/SKP'l/2026, dated 03.07.2026, in favour of Respondent Nos.7 and I as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violalive of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constrtution of lndia, contrary to the HMDA Act and the applicable Building Rules, and consequently set aside the said Building Permission and restrain Respondent Nos.7 and 8 from proceeding with any

¶49

IE[tt:!E:tr==zY!7

¶50

construction pursuant thereto until the identity and boundaries of the respective lands are determined in accordance with law.

¶51

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2026

¶52

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 suspend the Building Permission vide File No.018701/HN/DA/04595/ SWBPiSKPI/2026, dated 03.07.2026, granted in favour of Respondent Nos.7 and 8, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Mettu Shankar

¶54

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP For Mcpl Admn & lJrban Dev

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri. R. Venkatesh, Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶57

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: Sri lW Sahas Reddy, AGP for Revenue

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: Sri. Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel representing M/s. Solis Legal.

¶59

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶60

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶61

AT HYDERABAD

¶62

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶63

WRIT P TION No.26O1 ot 2f)26 (CNR No.HBHCO1O534652O26)

¶64

and

¶65

WRIT PETITION No.26503 of²⁰²⁶ (CNR No. HBHCo1os4s862026)

¶66

Oated: 08.09.2026

¶67

Between

¶68

Nellore Annapurna and another

¶69

...PETITIONERS

¶70

And

¶71

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal SecretarY, Municipal Ad ministration and^Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad and others

...RESPONDENTS

co-t!M,N_Q@EB:

The grievance of the^{petitioners in both thesewrit petitionls} cornmon as it^pertains to^{the buildingpermission inFile} No.018701/HMDAl04595/^{SwBP/SKPU2026dated 03.O7'2026} issued in favour of the^{respondents No.7 and 8 in respect of the} property bearing Plot Nos.30/UU, 30lRUi2,^{3l/31A, 3l/3lAA,} 37l3lA, 3713/A situated at^{Sv.Nos.30/UU, 3O/RU/2,37/31A,} 3U3/AA, 37/3/A,^{37/3/AA, KokapetVillage. Gandipet Mandal,} Rangareddy District and that^{the same isgrantedtothe} respondents No.7 and 8^{withoutawaitingfor surveyof land}

¶76

¶77

pursuant to order dated 09.06.2026. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

¶78

Heard lvlr. Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned se nior counsel, appearing for Mr. E. Pramodh Reddy. learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.2601L of 2026 and Mr. Mettu Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.26503 of 202(,; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel. appearing for M/s. Solis Legal, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8; Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned. standing counsol for HMDA; lvlr. R. Venkatesh, learned standing counsel for respondent - GHMC and Mr. M. Sahas Reddy, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶79

Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel, s,ubmitted that there is boundary dispute between the petitiorrers and the respondents No.7 and 8. In that connection, survey application was filed before the concerned authorities. As there was inaction, WP.No.17625 of 2026 was filed and order dated 0S).06.2026 was passed. The petitioners had been requesting the re:;pondent No.3 not to grant building permissicn until the boundary dispute is resolved.

¶80

Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, Iearned selior counsel, submitted that there is no dispute with regard to rdentity of the

¶81

lEE7

¶82

land of the respondents No.7 and 8. On application submitted by them, site inspection was done and documents were verified. On prima facie being satisfied with the title of the respondents No.7 and 8, building permission dated 03.07.3036has been granted to them for construction of multi-storied building in an extent of land admeasuring 37293.67 sq. meters.

¶83

Learned senior counsel iurther submitted that remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 22 of the HI\4DA Act, 2OO8 and so far no compliant has been filed under Section 22 of the HMDA Act. However, the HMDA has limited power in granting building permission. It is only concerned r,rrith the prima facie title of the party and civil disputes cannot be decided by it.

¶84

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that by way of abundant caution representatio n-cu m -objections dated 08.09.2026 has been submitted by the petitioners in Wp.No.26011 of 2026 to the respondent No.2 for revocation of building permission dated 03.07.2026 issueci to the respondents No.7 and g. In the representation. request was made to conduct property verification of the survey records, F.M.B, tippon, revenue records etc. to ascertain whether the lands covered by the building permission have been surveyed and irjentified. Learned senior counsel submitted that direction be issued to the respondent Nos.2

¶85

¶86

and 3 to keep the building^permission in abeyance^{u ntil complaint} of the petitioner is decided.

¶87

In the light of the above submisslons, considering^{that the} rep resentation/objections dated 08.09.2026 is^subrnitted by^the petitioners, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the complaint of^{i-he petitioners} dated 08.09.2026 for revocation of building^{perrnission dated} 03.O7.2026, by issuing notice to the^petition3rs and^the respondents No.7 and B anci^pass orders, as expeditiously^as possible, preferably, r,vithin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is^done, the respondent No.2 ls granted libbrty to conduct^{r;iteinspection} and pass interim order, howevei', by hearing both^par:ies.

¶88

The miscellaneous applications,^pending if any, shall stand

¶89

closed. There shall be no order as costs.

ITTRUE^COPY//

To,

I:",,:Jil:[:!;.",:',:E#,# ffr flfl^l'lffi ,*"ffi,

¶94

2 ll?.")ffi^{'[i,'^i5.il} "?l[S "

¶95

ffi*M

¶96

J Ihu Corporation Commissioner, GHIMC, (cHMC), Tank Bund, repy Uyl"*6u0. by Greater^--'" Hyderabad Municipal

¶97

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 20, Rajendranagar Division, GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶98

U City^ptanner, Rajendranagar Circte, GHrvC, Ranga Reddy

¶99

ll,.:r,l:.,.,"n1

¶100

6- The Commissioner, Survey and Setflement Land Records of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶101

One CC to SRI. E. PRAMODH REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶102

One CC to SRl. METTU SHANKAR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶103

One CC to M/s. SOLIS LEGAL, Adv-ocate tOpUCl

¶104

10 one cc to SRt v. NARASTMHA GoUD, standing counset for HtvrDA topucl 11.One CC to SRl. R. VENKAT^ESH, Standing Counset for Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation tOpUCl

¶105

12.TWO CCS tO GP FOR IUCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High COUrt fOr thE StAtE of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶106

13, Two CCs to Gp FOR Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶107

14.Two CD Copies

PSR

TKS

J,/

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED: 0810912026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.26011 AND 26503 OF 2026

¶117

=:-
', c
.J
Y
o())c 1 5 SEP ii025 o
-b
-f
I
,,i) *
oe" ?,'-c\ .-2,

DISPOSING OF THE

BOTH WRIT PETITIONS

WITHOUT COSTS.

Qolh
caR'-
q6

Smt. Vetury Srilakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vetury Srilakshmi v. The State of Telangana

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