The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent no 3 in removing the illegal ...RESPONDENTS encroachment upon a part of the venture road/public road, by constructing precast walls, which effectively obstructing access to the petitioner's plot 32, in Survey No. 92, Sri Alivelu Mangapuram Colony, Turkayamjal Village (now part of TurkayamjalMunicipality), Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, which is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional Under Art '14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and against the natural law of justice and compldtely in violation of principles of natural justice, Consequentially, direct the official respondent no 3 to conduct the inquiry and to ensure removal of the encroachments to allow access to the Petitioner's plot IA 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 Respondent No. 3 to depose the representation dated 17-O2-2025 and pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KAMBALAPALLI SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.I : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR HYDRAA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MUNICIPALIry Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to10:- The Court made the following: ORDER o HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY t2- Between: Mr. A. Surender Reddy S/o. A. Venkat Reddy ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and nine (9) others. ... Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) Heard IvIr. K. sravan Kumar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Pavan Kumar, learned standing counsel for the HYDRAA, appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4.

2. Learned standing counsel for HYDRAA and learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 have taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted , / --a]l \ 2 that earlier the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13 I 6 of 2025 seeking same relief and the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated

10.0t.2025 directing respondent No.4 herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 to inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be true, action shall be taken against respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein in accordance with law and the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7 on notice and affording them an opportunity ofhearing.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid writ petition was filed against the Municipality and this writ petition is filed against HYDRAA.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner having chosen to file W.P. No. 1316 of 2025 without making HYDRAA as party, now cannot be permitted to file another writ petition. Moreover, directions were already issued by this Court in the above writ petition. In case there is non-compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioner can file contempt case, however, the petitioner ( J submitted another representation dated 17.02.2025 to respondent No.3 - HYDRAA and approached this court for the same relief which is unnecessary. 5 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, FIYDRAA is effectively implementing the orders of this Court and there is lapse on the part of respondent No.4, which necessitated the petitioner to file fresh writ petition by making HYDRAA as party respondent. Hence, in the interest ofjustice, respondent No'4 herein is directed to forward the copy of order dated l0'01 '2025 in w.P. No.1316 of 2025 to respondent No.3 - FIYDRAA and if necessary may requisition the services of HYDRAA for implementation of the order of this Court'

6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA STANT RE GISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1

2. 3. i.:

8. 9. 10 The Com mis-sioner,tu rkaya'mjal Munici pality, At Turkaya-mjal, Ranga Reddy District. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRl. KAMBALAPALLI SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate loPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR IUUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI One CC to SRl. K. P=AVAN KUMAR, SC FOR HYD-RrAA tOPtiCl One CC to SRl. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITYIOPUCI Two CD Copies BM GJP \ n HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:0911212025 o f=i WP.No.37650 of 2025 I I '( tle S.rA 14: t5 BEr M a.' 5 ,4a * DISPOSIN n G c o F Ss T=l.l WRIT PETITION q \