Disposed

Smt. Yannam Anantha Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026WP/29700/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the seizure of a building by the Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the petitioners' regularization application within four weeks and imposed a total cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners. Status quo was maintained pending the regularization decision.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- to MMC and Rs. 1,00,000/- to Court Masters. Respondents directed to consider regularization application within 4 weeks. Status quo maintained.

Smt. Yannam Anantha Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:29700 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Yannam Anantha Laxmi, Wo Yannam Konda Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.3347, Road No.4, Vidyuth Nagar, Tellapur, Sanga Reddy District (previously Medak District), TG-502 032

¶10

Yannam Konda Reddy, S/o Yannam Venkat Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ- Employee, Rt/o H.No.3347, Road No.4, Vidyuth Nagar, Tellapur, Sangareddy District (Previously Medak District) TO SO2O32.

¶11

,....PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2, Malkajgiri lvlunicipal Corporation (MMC), Rep by its Commissioner, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation (MMC), Circle No. 1 4, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶16

The Assistant City Planner, Malkajgiri lVlunicipal Corporation (MMC), Circle No.14, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents seized the entire building of the Petitioners bearing H.No.3-10-453 (Otd No.4- 106iS), Sy.No.11, admeasuring 536.00 Sq. yards, or equivalent to 448.16 Sq.Mtrs., Plot No.09, HUDA

¶19

No.1259'tlP4lH/g5, LB^{Nagar No.B.A'/Gl 1285192,situated at Bahadurguda,} Mansoorabad, Hyderabad, under^{Malkajgiri Municipalcorporation,inspiteof having} sanctioned^plan for Stilt^{plus 4 UpperFloors and constructedentire building strictly} as per sanctioned^plan subsequently^{obtained occupancy certificate and mortgage} release deed, thereafter Petitioners^{have purchasedthe builling, elevationwas} modified as^per the Vastu^{forwhich issuing Speaking Ordervide} No.38/MMC/TPSIC14-2O26 dated^{'15.05.2026 and Sealing Noticevide No.39/C-} 14TPSMMCI2026 dated^{02.09.2026and seizedthe entirebuilding,inspite.of} pending application dated 05.09.2026 under Sec.4554 and 4551\A^{for regularization,} as illegal, arbitrary^{in violationof principles of natural justiceand in violation of} Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndia and also age,inst the equity and} consequently set aside the^{Speaking Order vide No.38/MIVCIT PS/C14-2026dated} 15.05.2026 and Sealing Notice^{vide No.39/C-14|TPS/MN/C/20216dated02.09.2026} issued by the Respondents.

¶20

|.A.NO:1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition. the^{High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the Speaking Order vide No,38/MMC/TPS|C14-^{2026 dated 15.05.2026} and Sealing Notice vide No.39/C-14|TPS/MMC/2026^{dated 02.01).2026issued by the} Respondents by directing the Respondents to unseize^{the Petitioners' building} bearing H. No.3-10-453^(Old No.4-106/ 5),^{Sy. No.11, adme,asuring536.00 Sq.} yards, or equivalent to 448.16 Sq.Mtrs., Plot No.09, HUDA No.12591lP4lHl95,^LB Nagar No.B.A,/GI 1285192, situated at Bahadurguda,^{Mansocrabad, Hyderabad,} under Malkaj^giri Municipal Corporation,^{pending disposal of the writ petition.} Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP^{FOR MCPL ADMNAND URBAN DEV}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to^{4 :} SRI SRINIVAS^{RAO PACHWA, SC} FOR MALKAJGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION^(MMC)

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

:wwE!kn:!9aw

¶26

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

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶28

WRIT PETITON No.29700 OF²⁰²⁶

¶29

CNRNo.HBHCo10613272026

¶30

DATE:09-09-2026

¶31

Between:

¶32

Mrs. Yannam Anantha^{Laxmiand another}

¶33

... Petitioners

¶34

AND

¶35

The State of Telangana

¶36

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶37

Municipai Administration^{and Urban Development Department,} Secretariiit, Hyderabad^{and others}

¶38

. Respondents

¶39

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶40

Heard Mr. M.A.K.^{Mukheed, learned counsel for the}

¶41

petitioners and Mr. Srinivas Rao^{Pachwa, leamed standing counsel} for Malkajgiri Municipal^{Corporation(MMC),appearingfor} respondent No s.2 to⁴

¶42

It is stated that^{petitionersare the joint ownersand} possessors of the^{property bearing H.No.3-10-453 (old No'4-} 106/5), admeasuring^{536 square yards in SurveyNo' 1 I , Plot No'9,} HUDA N o. 12^{59 I lP 4 l|l/9 5, LB Nagar,No.B.A"r'G I I 285t 92s ituated}

¶43

¶44

BVR,J W.P. No.29700 of 2026

¶45

at Bahadurguda, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad, having Durchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.238 of 2026 dated 07.01.2026. The vendors ofthe petitioners obtained building permission vide permit No.2/C3l1 891 512019 dated 3l .12.2019 for construction of Stilt for parking + four (4) upper lloors and the building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan. lhe Municipal authorities have issued Occupancy Certificate (OC) cn 29.09.2022. Thereafter, petitioners purchased the subj ect properry and had been residing therein

¶46

It is submitted that building was not constructed as per Vastu, as such, petitioners made repairs and renovations to the building. The Municipal authorities issued show-cause notice dated 23.04.2026 to the petitioners alleging that thr:y have made deviations to the sanctioned plan by erectin65 iron rods/ columns/stanchions in the setback area.

¶47

It appears from the record that petitioners subnitted reply to the show-cause notice dated,23.04.2026 claiming that temporary sheds were erected on the subject property.^{Thereafter,speaking}

¶48

¶49

BVR.J W.P. No.29700 of 2026

¶50

!!e-*.r!QMg#'.

¶51

order dated 15.05.2026 was passed stating that petitioners erected

¶52

temporary sheds and made construction on the Stilt floor (which was meant for parking) by converting into ground floor and also erected iron rods/columns/stanchions in the setback area against the sanctioned plan. Hence, reply of the petitioners was rejected and they were directed to remove the unauthorized constructions within a period of fifteen (15) days. Subsequently, sealing notice dated 02.09.2026 under Section 461(4),461-4 and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (GHMC Act) was issued to the petitioners.

¶53

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that subject property was sealed on 05.09.2026 and petitioners submined representation dated 05.09.2026 under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the GHMC Act seeking regularization of structures made on the subject property and requested Municipal authorities not to take coercive steps pending disposal ofthe regularization application.

¶54

Learned standing counsel for MMC submitted that this Court disposed of W.P. No.18424^{of 2026} by order dated 17.06.2026 by

¶55

¶56

BVR,J W.P. No.29700 of 2026

¶57

-t-

¶58

imposing costs on the petitioner therein and prayed to grant similar order by imposing reasonable costs on the petitioners herein. Further, respondent No.2 would consider the regularization application dated 05"09.2026 of the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶59

Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the regularization application dated 05.09.2026 of tJre petitioners submitted un<ier Sections 455-4 and 455-AA of the GHMC Act in respect of the bearing H.No.3-10-453 (old No.4-106i5), admeasuring 536 square yards in Survey No. 1 1, Plot No.9, HUDA No.12591/P4lH/95, LB Nagar, No.B.Nclt285l92 situated at Bahadurguda, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad, and pass orders, ln accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petiti,rners and all other concemed/interested persons, by affording opportunity of hearing to them, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the con,Jition of the petitioners depositing costs of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs

¶60

@EEntff

¶61

¶62

BVR.J W.P. No.29700 of 2026

¶63

only) i.e., (i) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation (MMC); (ii) Rs.1,00,000/-

¶64

(Rupees one lakh only) to the Court Masters & Personal

¶65

Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges Association, within a period of two

¶66

(2) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶67

Pending consideration of the regulari zation application dated

¶68

05.09.2026, status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained

¶69

in respect ofthe structures standing on the subject property

¶70

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶71

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶72

Sd/.G.ESWAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR /ffRuE^coPY/l (e SECTION^OFFICER

¶73

¶74

;i?!"'H#hi":;'"::?iffi^{,Hillfffi ffiilTEiil"':#ffi ::"'"":"J} ' H'iI",I6;: il'""njl1,i,l""li Matkajsiri Municipal corporation^{(MMC)' circle} Municipa^{corporation (MMC, circre}

¶75

: ffiffifib}"$tffiGt:&'

¶76

,g11tfri1i'k5$ffi'.$trffiyr*t:::l:::

B.^{Two CD CoPies}

SA SA g

C.C, TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910912026

ORDER

WP.No.29700 of 2026

--:: -=
liri tT,1r€
e
(((
c) 1 s $FP 2026 2
Di -:
---.:-

¶85

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶86

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶87

..
o
A
\9

Smt. Yannam Anantha Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yannam Anantha Laxmi 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