[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt.Sangishetty Rama Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1346 OF 2024
DATE: 30.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Smt. Sangishetty Rama Devi.
...Appellant
AND
The State of Telangana And Five Others.
...Respondents
Mr. Ponampelli Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. Krishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal has been filed against an order passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on 04.07.2024, dismissing Writ
Petition No.18021 of 2023 filed by the appellant with exemplary
costs of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant was directed to pay the costs
to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, Hyderabad,
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of
the impugned order.
2. The Writ Appeal was filed on 26.11.2024, assailing the
impugned order.
3. The following recording was made by a Co-ordinate Bench in
the Proceeding Sheet dated 29.11.2024:
"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of
the appellant in this appeal is confined only to the order insofar
as it imposes costs of Rs.10,000/-."
4. Hence, the present Appeal is only confined to the imposition
of costs on the appellant/writ petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent/respondent No.6.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the learned Single Judge did not have any jurisdiction or authority
to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs since the writ petitioner's
grievance was based on the admitted facts of the case.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6
places a short narration of the relevant facts leading to the filing of
the present Writ Appeal.
8. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the permission
granted by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.6 for
construction on the concerned premises by a permit order dated
11.03.2020.
9. The Writ Petitioner contended that the Writ Petitioner
is the Leaseholder of 4 mulgies (small shop units/commercial
rooms/shop spaces) in the premises belonging to the respondent
No.6 through a Lease Deed executed by the father of the
respondent No.6. It was also the case of the Writ Petitioner that
the respondent No.6 obtained building permission by showing
wrong boundaries including width of the road and that the
building permission was obtained by suppression and
misrepresentation. The Writ Petitioner accordingly gave a
representation dated 23.02.2023 to the respondent No.5/the
Municipal Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda
District, to take appropriate action.
10. The case of the respondent No.6 before the learned Single
Judge was that the Writ Petitioner is not the tenant of the subject
property and that the Writ Petitioner filed a Suit (O.S.No.30 of
2021) before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, seeking
perpetual injunction restraining the respondent No.6 from evicting
the Writ Petitioner from the said premises. The said Suit was
dismissed on 28.10.2025.
11. Senior Counsel further submits that the Writ Petitioner is
chronic litigant and has been harassing the respondent No.6 and
his father by filing Court frivolous Cases against the respondent
No.6.
12. We do not wish to go into the merits of the matter since
counsel appearing for the appellant/Writ Petitioner made a
specific submission before the Co-ordinate Bench that the
appellant is only aggrieved by the order to the extent of imposition
of costs.
13. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge and note that the learned Single Judge took into
account all the pleadings filed by the appellant and came to the
considered finding that the appellant was not the tenant of the
property and had no locus to file the Writ Petition and further that
the Writ Petition was filed only to settle civil disputes between the
parties.
14. We do not find any scope for interference with the findings
in the impugned order and particularly with the conclusion arrived
at.
15. The learned Single Judge exercised his discretion in
dismissing the Writ Petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.We do not
find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the
learned Single Judge. The scope of interference is extremely
limited in an intra-Court Appeal, particularly where the first Court
has not shown any arbitrary or perverse basis in the exercise of
discretion.
16. We accordingly do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal.
17. W.A.No.1346 of 2024, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any shall stand
vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 30.03.2026
NDS
