[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Kandi Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.9641 OF 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 01-04-2026
Between:
Mr. Kandi Rama Rao
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and eleven (11) others.
... Respondents
ORDER :
(ORAL)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare
the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in entertaining building/
development permission in respect of the land admeasuring
Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey Nos.164/A, 164/AA, 165/A, 165/AA
and 165/B situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite status quo order passed by
respondent No.2 in File No.D2/2782/2025 dated 24.03.2026, as
being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Mr. Vishal Maharana, learned counsel, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 12.
3. Heard Mr. Katike Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6,
Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HMDA,
appearing for respondent No.5, and Mr. Vishal Maharana, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12.
4. It is stated that appeal was filed by the petitioner under
Section 8 of the Telangana Agricultural land (Conversion for
Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act 2006 challenging the NALA
proceeding Nos.2500057876 in File No.B/292/2025, 2500060069
in File No.B/261/2025, 2500057736 in File No.B/293/2025,
2500060077 in File No.B/291/2025, 2500133285 in
File No.B/303/2025, 2500057603 in File No.B/260/2025 dated
13.03.2025 issued in favour of unofficial respondents. Status quo
order was passed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,
in File No.D2/2782/2025 dated 24.03.2026, until further orders.
The said appeal is pending before respondent No.2. Petitioner
reliably learnt that respondent Nos.7 to 12 are seeking to obtain
building/development permission in respect of the land covered by
the status quo order. If any permission is granted to the petitioner,
it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as such, the present writ
petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12 submitted that
the writ petition is premature. Respondent Nos.7 to 12 have not
submitted any application seeking building permission as of now.
The application if any will be made only after the status quo order
dated 24.03.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is vacated. The writ
petition is filed without any cause of action and liable to be
dismissed.
6. Recording the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for
respondent Nos.7 to 12 that respondent Nos.7 to 12 have not
submitted any application seeking building permission and will
abide by the status quo order passed by respondent No.2, the writ
petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
April 01, 2026
MS
