SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4440

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
J.N. Prakash Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 3045/2026



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3045 of 2026

DATE OF ORDER: 03.02.2026

Between:

J.N.Prakash Rao, S/o. late J.N.Narasimha Rao

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration & Urban Development,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Building, Hyderabad & 2 others

...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of

respondent No.2 in taking action against the unauthorized

construction being made in Survey No.787 in an extent of

167.22 square meters with an interim prayer to direct

respondent No.2 to stop the illegal construction being made by

respondent No.3 in Survey No.787 in the extent of 167.22 square

meters.

##PAGE2##

2

2. The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the lands

admeasuring Ac.1-04 guntas in Survey No.652, Ac.0-27 guntas

in Survey No.776/1, Ac.0-09 guntas in Survey No.776/2 and

Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.778 situated at Narsapur Village

are being claimed as ancestral properties standing in the name

of Veramma. A suit for partition and separate possession of the

above lands was filed by some of the family members and the

same was numbered as O.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of learned

Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur. The petitioner was arrayed as

defendant No.6 in the said suit. A preliminary decree was

passed on 31.12.2007. Pending final decree proceedings, all the

parties have entered into compromise and the petitioner was

allotted 25% in the above said lands.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3

commenced construction abutting the petitioner’s land in Survey

No.787. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that

respondent No.2 granted permission in an extent of 167.22

square meters to construct residential building consisting of stilt

for parking plus two upper floors on 26.08.2025 and that the

permission was granted only for residential purpose without any

cellar. It is further submitted that contrary to the sanctioned

plan, the respondent No.3 commenced construction.

##PAGE3##

3

4. It is further submitted that petitioner initially made a

representation on 08.01.2026 to respondent No.2 to stop the

illegal construction being raised by respondent No.3 and when

the petitioner gave a complaint, only cellar was dug and no slab

was laid in the ground floor. As the respondent No.3 was

proceeding with the construction without leaving any setbacks,

the petitioner gave another representation to respondent No.2

requesting to stop the illegal construction. Subsequent to

submission of 2nd representation dated 22.01.2026, the

respondent No.3 laid slab in the ground floor.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of

making repeated representations, the respondent No.2 is not

taking any action against respondent No.3 by stopping the illegal

construction made by him. Aggrieved by the inaction of

respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

6. Mr. P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2 submits that

building permission order and work commencement letter was

given to respondent No.3 on 26.08.2025 and permission was

granted for construction of individual residential building

consisting of stilt for parking plus two upper floor in the open

place in Survey No.787 situated at Narsapur Village & Mandal,

##PAGE4##

4

Medak District, which according to the petitioner, are their

neighbors.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities further

submits that in case respondent No.3 is constructing violating

the building permission order, appropriate steps would be taken

by putting notice to respondent No.3 and would submit that

notice to respondent No.3 may be dispensed. Since the

complaint / representation made by the petitioner is pending

before respondent No.2, appropriate steps would be taken.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent

No.2.

9. Recording the submissions of learned cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top