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) 10833

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Smt.B.Anuradha – Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Commissioner – Respondent
WP 31937/2014



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.31937 of 2014 DATE: 12.02.2026 Between:

Smt. B. Anuradha & another …Petitioners AND The Municipal Commissioner, Armoor Municipality, Armoor, Nizamabad District & others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not renewing the lease period of the Municipal shop bearing Nos.3-4-1 and 3-4-2, Old Bus Stand Road, Armoor Municipality, Armoor, Nizamabad District as void, illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to renew the lease period for a period of 3 years from 01.11.2014 as per G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 05.02.2011 and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel representing Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel would contend that in view of 120-M (JA-1) Dept, dated 31.03.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.56 MA & UD (J1) Department, dated 05.02.2011, the application dated 08.10.2014 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of lease for a period of three years from 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2014 cannot be considered as a lease period of the shop Nos.3-4-1 and 3-4- 2 were already completed the agreed lease period as stated above.

4. Further, this Court issued notice vide docket order dated 27.10.2014 and there was no interim order passed by this Court. Apparently, the petitioners are on the footing that they are still continuing their lease. However, to meet the ends of justice, the respondent-authorities are directed to follow the due process of law, in the event, if they intend to dispossess the petitioners from the said shops.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 12.02.2026 ds

4879 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.31937 of 2014 Date: 12.02.2026 ds

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