Srirangam Upender, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-10-16. Srirangam Upender, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3183 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 10744 OF 202s Between: Srirangam Upender, S/o Venktramnarsaiah, Aged about 53yrs, Occ Eusiness, R/o H. No. 6-3-72, Kothabazar, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District, ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, lvlunicipal Administration and Uiban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2. The lr/ahabubabad Municipality, O/o Mahabubabad, ft/ahabubabad District. Rep. by its Commissioner, 3. The Tahsildar, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District. 4. The trrlandal Surveyor, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District. 5. lvl/s. Fortune Buildbrs and Developers, O/o Flat No. 103, B-Block, Mak Castle, Upperpally, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy Ditrict, Rep. by its tVlanaging Partners. ...
RESPONDENTS 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 2, in not disposing the Representation Dt. 11. 03. 2025 made by the petitioner, for revoking of the Building Construction Permit (Permit No. O011lBOl3OO3l2024, dated 16. 10. 2024,) for illegal and unauthorised constructions made by Respondent No. 5 and not preventing the illegal Constructions which is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioners Representation Dt. 11. 03.
2025, and to prevent any further encroachment or unlawful construction on the Petitioner's property lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 'r 51 cpc praying that in the r rcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitron, the High cor r may be preased to direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to consider the F,L I ,rE Apprication No, DER022501148090, Dt. 10. 03. 2025, made by the petition,.. in TS,DHARANI, Portal, for conducting the survey to fix the correct boundarres by demarcating the 'subject property' i. e. , in respect of the Iands in survey of Sy \o. 1r611, 177, and 1771A, foi, l Land admeasuring Ac. 0. 32 Guntas, situat,: I at l\rlahabubabad Village, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District, perc ing disposal of the above writ petition IANO:2OF2 025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the c r cumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No.
2 to revoke the Buirding constru l ion permit (permit No 001 1rBor30o3r2o24 dated 16 10. 2024) issued in farr r of M/s. Fortune Builders and Deveropers (Respondent No. 5), as the said 1r,rmit was obtained through misrepresentation of facts, and the construction ieviates from the sanctioned plan, reading to the ilegar encroachment upon petitioners ti _. rand, pending disposal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. G. SATISH BABU counser for the Respondent No. 1 : Gp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADt,NrsrRATrON counser ror the Respondent -#DsHI^'$! r'-ExE:8"#tJ! ,^, SC FOR MUNICIT ALITY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3to4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: - The Court made the following: ORDER . ;. HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY 40 F 2025 WRIT PETITI ON No. 107 ORDER: for the petitioner' learned counsel Mr. G.
Satish Babu' writ petition with of this Court to withdraw the seeks permission and to that to institute a fresh writ petition' liberty to the petitioner dated 13 10 2025 to the Registry' effect, he addressed a letter is accorded' 2. Permission writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn 3. Accordingly, the granting liberty as sought for' No order as to costs' petitions' if any' miscellaneous As a sequel thereto, pending in this writ petition stand closed' SD! P. PONNA KRISHNA A SISTA NT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRl. G. SATISH BABU, AdvocalqlqP-V-cl rloN AND URBAN 2. rwo ccs to GP ron rrrul. riclpAllnnlnlslh ' i# siJi" oi Tet"ngana' at Hvdera-b^ad D'EViioiMeNr ,iign c;;,1i;; [our] 3. i;d C-Cs to Cp fOR REVENUE High Court for the State of I elangana, al Hvderabad [OUTI +. cii,E"cdt" Snr. kntsurun REDDY PUrrA, sc FoR MUNlclPALlrY loPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies BM PVL -l HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 'f. iHE S t4 ( o €' o ! l ! ll tig 202c Pi I * , A hTC ORDER WP. No.
10744 ot 2025 I i i i I I I I/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHOUT I COSTS 'ITHDRAWN I I I rlM eq
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.