IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No4007 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 10.02.2026 Between:

Payyamula Ramulu ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents

ORDER :

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

“…to issue a Writ Order or Direction. more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in memo vide R.C.No.48/2025/GRC, dated 30.08.2025 refusing the construction permission to the petitioner in his residential plot to an extent of 200 sq.yds., in Survey No.145, is total extent Acs.4.22 gnts., situated at Waddicherla Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory. b)Consequently direct Respondent No.2 to consider request for construction permission to the petitoners residential plot to an extent of 200 sq. yds., in Survey No.145, is total extent Acs.4.22 gnts., situated at Waddicherla Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District with in a time frame fixed by this Honble Court...”

2. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land in Survey No.145, to an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas, situated at Waddicherla/Perecherla Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District (erstwhile Warangal District) was originally patta land owned by Sri B.Suresh Babu, who sold it in 1999. The land changed hands multiple times, was subdivided into residential plots, and houses were constructed over the same. Property taxes and electricity bills have been regularly paid by the owners. The petitioner purchased a 200 sq. yd. residential plot in 2012 from Sri B.Prakash, built a small house, and later in 2020, demolished it to construct a ground + first-floor RCC house. No prior permission was obtained for this construction. The land is currently recorded as Gramakantam/Abadi and is on the prohibited list in revenue records. In 2025, the petitioner applied for retroactive sanction under the Telangana Grampanchayat Raj Development Layout Building Rules, 2002. The application was refused and that the petitioner was advised to approach civil courts. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 has the authority to sanction the construction even post-construction, as it has done so for other houses in the same area, and thus challenges the refusal via the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has constructed a house and subsequently applied for a house number. It is noted that the survey number on which the petitioner’s property has been constructed falls under the prohibited list, as reflected in the Bhu Bharati Portal. Hence, seeks to pass appropriate orders.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.3 is a formal party as against the order passed by respondent No.2 no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner.

6. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2 was not vested with any authority either to consider the petitioner’s case or to reject it. It is respondent No.3 alone who is empowered, under Section 121 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, without due consideration of this aspect and in a mechanical manner, the said authority forwarded the petiti