High Court · 2025

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, Order or Direclion, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide No. M.C.KlBl43ol2011 dt. 13-10-2011 refusing to grant permission for construction, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional aM consequently set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013( WPMP. NO: 13395 OF 2013) 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 pass orders directing the respondenl No.1 herein to forthwith grant permission to ryl',f / the petitioners for construction of compound wall and i room in the land admeasuring 806.1 Sq. Yds., in Sy.No. 938/ AA situated i t Kodad village and Mandal, Nalgonda District by suspending the impugned r rder dt. 13.10.2011 bearing No.MCI(B/340/2011, pending disposal of the main ! rrit Petition, Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. N.V.R.RAJYA LAKSHMI, tll :P. FOR SRI K.V.V.VEDANTHA CHARY/ , Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Rt DDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.VIJAYAKANTH (rr( r PRESENT) The Court made the following: ORDER t) r-\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHAIAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.1O818 of 2O13 ORDER: This Writ PetiLion is filed seekjng the following relief: '...to issue on appropriate Wit, Order or )ieetbn more partiatlarlg one in tLe nature of Wit of Mandqmus to declare the impugned order passed bg tle Ist respondent uide No.M.C.K/ B/ 430/ 2011 dated 1 3. 1 O. 2 0 1 1 refusing to g rant permission.,for conshuctton as being illegal, arbitrary and uncorustitutional and anseqtentlg set aside tte same and- to grant sttch other relbf or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proryr in the ciratmstances of tle case---"

2. Heard Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, Iearned counsel representing Sri K.V.V.Vedanta Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioners submitted t]rat a suit in O.S.No.1l5 of 2OO9 was liled on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, seeking injunction simpliciter, which was allowed by the trial Court on

09.12.2OA9. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 frled CMA.No.1 of 2O10 on the lile of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, and the said appeal \Mas allowed on 28.12.2010 setting aside the injunction order and decree granted by the trial Court.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners have hled CRP.No.596 of 2011 before this Honble Court and this Court was pleased to allow the said CRP on 2 1 1 .O3.20I I by setting aside the judgment and < ecree passed tn CMA.No. 1 of 2010. She further stated that order in \.No.322 of 2O09 in O.S.No. I 15 of 2O09 on the file of the Junior Civil J :dge, Kodad is in favot.r of the petitioner and rs operating against tspo;roent No.2. karned counsei ior the petitioners further submitte j that without any basis for rejecting the building application, the respor Jent-Municipality has rejected the building application. As such, it i; unjustified and untenable and as respondent No.2 was restrained frc rr interfering into the rights of the petitioners and pima facie the title s in favour of the petitioners. As such, prayed this Court to set asiclo the notice, dated

13.10.201 l.

5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel submit,, cl that in view of the pendency of the suit, respondent No.l was rnable to accord permission for construction of house by the petition,r s in the premises alleged to have been owned and possessed by tht r -r and in view of changed circumstances, ttre petitioners may be d r :cted to hle new application through online by submitting all the r: evant documents and necessaqr orders from the learned trial Court an, respondent No. I would consider the same by following due pr', cess of law as contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Acr , 20t9.

6. In view of the submissions made by the resper: ive parties and in view o[ the changed circumstances and also thr: order passed ln

1.A.No.322 of 20O9 in O.S.No.115 of 20O9 on the ftle rf the Junior Civil 7 J Judge, Kodad, as conhrmed by this Hontrle Courr in C.R.P.No.596 of 2O11 and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.l, this Court deer^rs it fit and proper to direct petitioners to file appropriate application througrr online by frling all the relevant documents and upon such application being made - .:spondent No. 1 shall consider the same by following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2O 19 and respondent No. 1 shall also issue notice to respondent No.2 before passing any orders ald shall also examine all the documents filed by the petitioners and consider the case of the petitioners on merits- It is needless to say that the petitioners shall file application within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and respondent No.1 shall dispose of the same, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter by following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangala Municipalities Act, 2019 and shall also issue notice to the parties before passing orders.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petilion, shall stand closed. SD/- AHME D ABDULLA KHAN ASSISieur RectsrRlR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Commissioner, Kodad Municipality' Kodad' Nalgonda District' One.CC to SRI K.V V'VEDANTHA CHARYA' Advocate [OPUC] on.tcc to SRI M.VIJAYAKANTH' Advocate [oPUCl 6nc cc to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MCPL [OPUC]

3. A *7 /

5. Two CD Copies BSR TKS 4-, I I HIGH COURT DATED: O4lOgl2O25 e + rr- S i4It ,oo 2 r rtt] 2026 )> * Y:TC4 ORDER WP.No.10818 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS *\)*