[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Dongari Srujana vs The State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
W.P.No.37915 of 2025
Date: 13.04.2026
Between:
Dongari Srujana
... Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Tank bund, Hyderabad and 4 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Jakkula Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. S.Jyothi Naik, learned Assistant Government Leader for Energy
appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following
relief:
".....to pleased to pass an order(s) or direction(s) more
particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus in declaring
the highhandedness of the Official Respondent No.4 in
rejecting the Electricity Connection applied by the Petitioner
on 03-12-2025 vide Reg.No.NR919254561119 over Petitioner
property admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards in Plot No.126
admeasuring forming part of Sy.Nos.259/3, 259/4, 259/5,
259/7, 260/2, 260/3, 260/8, 261/1, 261/3, 261/4 and
262/8 situated at Bowrampet Village, Dundigal-
Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as
Violation of Article 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and also
violative of Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 thereby direct
the Respondent No.4 to provide Electricity Connection to the
Petitioner property admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards in Plot
No.126 forming part of Sy.Nos.259/3, 259/4, 259/5, 259/7,
260/2, 260/3, 260/8, 261/1, 261/3, 261/4 and 262/8
situated at Bowrampet Village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and pass....."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner is the
owner of the property admeasuring 300 Square Yds. in Plot No.126
forming part of Sy.Nos.259/3, 259/4, 259/5, 259/7, 260/2, 260/3,
260/8, 261/1, 261/3, 261/4 and 262/8 situated at Bowrampet
Village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District (for short "subject property"). The subject property was
purchased under a Registered Sale Deed dated 30.06.2021, bearing
Document No.17861 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
an application to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for electricity connection and
the said application has been rejected by respondent Nos.2 to 4 on
the ground of land dispute. Hence, the writ petition.
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed a counter stating that the
writ petitioner has uploaded the registered sale deed along with the
application for electricity connection. However, the said application
was rejected on the basis of a letter dated 08.04.2021
addressed by the Commissioner, Dundigal Municipality in
LR.No.312/DM/MMD/2021 wherein, a request is made not to
sanction any temporary or permanent power supply to the above said
Sy.Nos. There is also a reference to Satish Mutually Aided
Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which is claiming to be an
illegal layout in Sy.Nos.246 to 261 and 265 to 269. There is a civil
case bearing O.S.No.111 of 2018 pending before the learned
Principal & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Court with respect to
the layout obtained by Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing
Society Limited in the aforementioned Sy.Nos. and therefore
respondent Nos.2 to 4 are claiming no illegality or irregularity in
rejecting the petitioner's application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
plot does not fall in the layout of Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative
Housing Society Limited and further submitted that their vendors
have purchased a land in 1983 and the said land is not in dispute.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the
only reason for rejecting the petitioner's application is the
communication from Commissioner Dundigal Municipality i.e., the
Civil dispute in O.S.No.111 of 2018 pending before the learned
Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District with respect to
illegal layout of Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society
Limited.
7. The sale deed submitted by the petitioner in Document
No.17861 of 2021 dated 30.06.2021 shows that the plot No.126 is
purchased form a private party who in turn purchased under a
registered sale deed dated 19.11.1983. The sale deed does not have
any reference to any layout much less to Satish Mutually Aided
Co-operative Housing Society Limited. There is no clarity about what
is the land in each Sy.No., which is claimed by Satish Mutually Aided
Co-operative Housing Society Limited. There is no clarification
whether the entire land in the Sy.Nos.246 to 261 and 265 to 269 is
claimed by Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society
Limited or not.
8. In case, the plot claimed by the writ petitioner was covered by
the litigation involving Satish Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing
Society Limited in O.S.No.111 of 2018, the rejection would not have
been illegal or arbitrary. But, in the absence of such clarification
and certainty, the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the
application submitted by the petitioner does constitute illegality and
irregularity.
9. On account of pending litigation involving Satish Mutually
Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the rest of the plot
owners in the area cannot be denied electricity connection which is a
fundamental right. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner
is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to
consider the petitioner's plea for granting electricity connection when
a fresh application is made. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Date: 13.04.2026
Bj
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Date: 13.04.2026
BJ
