IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 16.03.2026 Between:

Tummala Prudhvi Raj … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and Three others … Respondents

ORDER

Challenging the impugned show-cause notice dated 26.02.2026 issued by the respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.17, wherein and whereby directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction shall not be demolished/sealed with a further direction to stop the work forthwith and appear before him on 02.03.2026 at 11 am., in the Chamber, petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking consequential prayer to set aside the same.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.11.01 guntas in Sy.No.64, 65 and 66 situated at Jalpally village, Balapur Mandal, now Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of Proceedings No.482/2017 dated 14.07.2017 and he is carrying on agricultural operations in the said land. For the purpose of agricultural operations, maintenance of cattle, a cattle shed was existing in the said land from long time. As the said cattle shed had become dilapidated over a period of time, petitioner undertook renovation and repair of the existing agricultural shed. While so, the respondent No.4 issued impugned show-cause notice dated 26.02.2026 alleging that the petitioner was proceeding with unauthorized construction of a shed without obtaining necessary permission over the subject land for which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 09.03.2026 stating that the structure in question is only a cattle shed existing in agricultural land and had only renovated the same as it was in a dilapidated condition. It is further submitted that without considering the reply dated 09.03.2026 if the respondents are permitted to proceed further pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice there is every possibility of taking coercive steps such as demolition, sealing or interference with the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also filed better affidavit stating that there was an old house, existing in the petitioner’s land adjacent to the shed that is being constructed, which is evinced from property tax payment receipts wherein it is clearly mentioned that the door number is 7-256/4 and it is in the petitioner’s father’s name and there was no objection from the Panchayat office for obtaining electricity connection. The same are filed along with the writ petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though various grounds have been urged, he is confining only to the extent of a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the reply dated 09.03.2026 and till such time, not to take any coercive steps on the subject shed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel Sri Singireddy Ravinder Reddy appearing for the respondents would submit that the reply dated 09.03.2026 would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed.

6. In that view of the matter, recording the aforesaid submissions and with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to consider the reply dated 09.03.2026 and supporting documents, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner, and take further steps/pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of Four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondent No.4 is directed not to take any coercive steps on the subject shed.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel