logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 372 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 16847 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Parties : Akshay Neemkar & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for MCPL ADMN Urban Dev.
Date of Judgment : 25-05-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
- The petitioner challenged a speaking order dated 09.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 3 directing demolition of allegedly unauthorized constructions.
- The petitioner had submitted an explanation on 13.04.2026 but feared demolition.
- Both parties were heard, and the court, without expressing any view on the merits, disposed of the writ petition.
- The court directed respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order.
- The status quo as of the date of the order is to be maintained by both parties.
- No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugned speaking order dated 09.04.2026.

2. This writ petition is taken as House Motion.

3. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr.P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have applied for two (2) construction permissions for stilt + 2 upper floors each and thereafter clubbed the said 2 building permissions and constructed additional floors. In that regard, respondent authorities have issued speaking order dated 09.04.2026 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized constructions within a period of 15 days failing which the respondent authorities will take appropriate steps to remove the said unauthorized constructions. It is submitted that pursuant to the said notice, petitioner had submitted explanation dated 13.04.2026. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though explanation was submitted to respondent No.3 on 13.04.2026, there was threat of demolition by the respondent authorities.

5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 13.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till then, status quo as on date shall be maintained by both the parties. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal