Dismissed

Thota Sai Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026WP/29341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, the High Court held that the petitioner lacks locus standi as there is no clear title or possession. The Court exercised discretion not to pass anticipatory relief and directed the petitioner to approach GHMC or HMDA directly by application once building permission applications are filed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs. Petitioner at liberty to approach GHMC/HMDA with appropriate application when building permission is sought.

Thota Sai Kumar Vs the State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYSIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 293410F 2026}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thota Sai Kumar,^{S/o Thota Chinna Seetha Ramaiah'Age: 63 years' Occ:} Sr=in".t, R/o^{H.No. 7-1-611711,Dharam KaranRoad' Ameerpet'Hyderabad -} 500016..

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of^{Telangana, ReP bYits Principal Secretary, MuniciPal} Administration and^{UrbanDevelopment Department,Secretariat, HYderabad}

¶13

fhe Hyderabad^{Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthorityRep byits} Commissioner,^HYderabad.

¶14

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal, CorporationRep by its Commissioner'} GHMC, HYderabad.

¶15

The Zonal^{Commissioner, SerilingampallyZone' CyberabadMunicipal} Corporation^HYderabad

¶16

The District^{Collector, Ranga Reddy District}

¶17

The District^{Registrar, RangaReddy District'}

¶18

The Sub Registrar,^{Kondapur, RangaReddy District'}

¶19

S.Smt.M.Krishnaveni,W/oM.MohanRao,Agedabout62years'Occ: - ior."*it", R/o flat No.1O4 C Block, Landmark residency Madinaguda' Miyapur HYderabad.

¶20

P. Rukmini,^{W/o P. SatyanarayanaRao, Aged about 69 years' Occ:} housewife^{Ri./oH.No.7-1-6it7,DhiramKaran Road, Ameerpet Hyderabad'}

¶21

1o.T.Satish chander,^{s/o T.Chinnasitaramaiah Aged about63 years occ'} '-'Businessrlo10-4-771tA,/sriramnagarcolonyMasabTank,Hyderabad.

¶22

1 1 . T.sriram Mohan,^{s/o T.Chinna sitaramaaih Aged about 66 years aocc'} 'businessr/oH.no.7-l.6llTDharamkaramroadAmeerpetHyderabad

¶23

12.Smt. K. Pramila^{Rani, Wo KGK murthy,Age about 76 years' Occ: housewife'} 10-4-771tA,isri^{ram nagarcolony, MasabTank, Hyderabad'}

¶24

M/s Sumeru lnfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing parent Subash Namburu, S/o MC Namburu, Plot no 198, /road NC). 14 Jubilee Hills Hyderabad.

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Ccurt may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in tho nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents 2 to 7 in non considering the representation dated 22.7.2026 regarding the grant any layout pe:rmission or building permission for the land in survey No.208 and 209 part extent ac 5.26 gts situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without considering the objections raised the petitioner even though the Memorandum of understanding between the petitioner and respondents 8 to 13 is pending vider registered doc No. 495712009 dated 7.7.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the provisions of Hyderabad Municipalities Act consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.7.2026 before granting any layout permission or building permission in the subject property.

¶27

l.A. NO: 1OF 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 direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.7.2026 rand to consider the objections while granting Layout permission or building permiss;ion for the subjecC. lands in survey No 208 and 209 extent ac 5.26 gts situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP for Muncipal Administration & Urban Development

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Sri. V. Siddharth Goud, representing V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri. K. Ravi Mahender, Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶33

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNos.5to 7: Sri' M' SahasReddy'} AGP for Revenue

¶34

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.8 to 13:} --:--

¶35

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶37

AT HYDERABAD

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶39

WRIT P TITION No.2 934L of 2026

¶40

(CNR No.HBHcoros9o392026)

Dated: O .09.2026

Between

Thota Sai Kumar

...PETITIONER

And

The State of Tela n ga na, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hydera bad and others

¶47

...RES.PONDENTS

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Mr. V. Siddharth Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 - HMDA, Mr. K. Ravi tr4ahender, Iearned standing counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 and N4r. M. Sahas Recldy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respor-rcj,:nts No.5 to 7, submitted that the petitioner does not have iocus lrtandl to file this writ petition. The petitioner is claiming interest over the subject property on the strength of a Mernorandum of Understending dated 07.O7.2008 and it is not clear as to the ownership ancl possession with respect to the subject prcperty. The contents rtf the MOU reveal that there is no title passed on to the petitioner. There is a

¶50

¶51

serious dispute regai'ding the land acimeasuring Ac.5.26 guntas, Sy.Nos.208 and 209 part, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Moreover, the petitioner cannot seek for a relief in a writ petition, which would amount to passing an anticipatory relief even when there is no information about the respondents No.8 to 13 approaching GH14C/HMDA for building permission.

¶52

In the light of the above objections, this Court is not inclined to pass any order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach GHMC/HMDA, as the case rnay be, vnith an appropriate application whenever any thirC pa.ies includin-g the respondents No.8 to 13 submit application for building permission. As and when such application is filed, the same shali be-considered in accordance with law.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.

¶54

Sd/-AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Principal Secretary,. Municipal Administration, and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation, GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶61

4 The Zonal commissioner, Seriringampa[y Zone, cyberabad Municipar Corporation Hvderabad.

¶62

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶63

The Diskict Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶64

The Sub Registrar, Kondapur, Ranga ReOOf Oistrict.

¶65

one CC to sRt. cuDt MADHUSuoT_rnrrr RE;;,;;r."ate [opUC] t lff"r:hltGP FOR HoME, High court for rn" ,r,"," of retansana at

¶66

'o ilo"u3," to SRl v. NARASTMHA GouD, standrne, counset for HMDA,

¶67

11.One CC to SRt. K TAV| MAH_ENDER, Standing Counsel for Greater . - Hyderabad - Hyderabad Two CD Copies Municipat Corporation foptcj^'' -.-,,wri

¶68

. - Hyderabad - Hyderabad Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912026

ORDER

WP.No.29341 ot 2026

i.1-:lA r^-
,<
la
o-)
rJ I 5 SIP 2026
(,)
.\
t *
r)6.s,'/\Tc r-tr-o.

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶76

<br>'D
"# rr,b
(Y
)

Thota Sai Kumar v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Sai Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases