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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.