Smt. Yachamanerii @ Annamaneni Niharika, vs Nampelli Rani

Court
High Court for the State of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY


WRIT APPEAL No.1011 OF 2026
( CNR No.HBHC010590592026 )

Dated: 17.09.2026
Between:

Smt. Yachamaneni @ Annamaneni Niharika
… Appellant
And

Nampelli Rani and 3 others
…Respondents

JUDGMENT:


Mr. Mahesh Kumar Vemuganti, learned counsel appears for the
appellant.
Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1/writ
petitioner.
Mr. G. Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department, appears for respondent
No.2.

2. Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14286 of 2023 has filed the
present Writ Appeal aggrieved by the common order dated 08.06.2026
passed by the learned writ Court in the said Writ Petition filed against the

2

building permission vide permit dated 09.09.2022 granted in her favour in
respect of the subject property. Vide common order under appeal, the learned
writ Court directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the
representations/objections dated 10.05.2023 filed by the writ petitioner
seeking cancellation of building permission granted in favour of the appellant
taking into account the observations made in the common order under appeal
and the common order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition Nos.26223 of 2023 and 13064 of 2024 and also the
order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No.60126 of 2025. The learned writ Court also directed the
respondent-Corporation to complete such exercise within thirty days. It also
directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the structures existing
on the lands mentioned in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the meantime.
Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14286 of 2023, being aggrieved by the
said direction, has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the litigation history
of the subject property and submitted that respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition
No.14286 of 2023 by suppressing the material facts. The learned writ Court
ought to have dismissed the said Writ Petition as the dispute concerns the
authenticity and validity of the appellant’s title documents which can only be
adjudicated by the competent civil Court but not by the statutory authority or

3

the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court ought not to have relegated the
matter to the respondent-Corporation instead it ought to have directed the
parties to pursue the pending civil Suit. Therefore, respondent No.4 in Writ
Petition No.14286 of 2023 is aggrieved.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner submits that in the
common order under appeal, the learned writ Court had clearly opined that
there is no need to decide prima facie title of the parties with reference to the
building permission impugned in such Writ Petition. The learned writ Court
therefore, directed that the representations/objections dated 10.05.2023 filed
by the writ petitioner for cancellation of the building permission granted in
favour of the appellant be considered taking into account the observations
made in the common order under appeal and the common order dated
27.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
Nos.26223 of 2023 and 13064 of 2024 and also the order dated 08.12.2025 of
the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.60126 of 2025
within the stipulated period of thirty days only. The learned writ Court also
directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property.
Therefore, none of the issues of title are required to be dealt with by the
respondent-Corporation.

4

5. But, if an objection has been made to the sanction of the building
permission in the background of the facts and circumstances of the litigation
between the parties which the appellant had not brought before the building
sanctioning authority, such consideration of the representations of the writ
petitioner would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
applicable Municipalities Act/Municipal Corporation Act. If either of the
parties is aggrieved by the said decision, it would be open for them to raise it
in an appropriate proceeding.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the common order under appeal, the respondent-
Corporation may be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant before taking a decision. Learned counsel further submits that the
present Writ Petition No.14286 of 2023 was disposed of along with Writ
Petition No.14274 of 2023 and aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition
No.14274 of 2023, respondent No.4 therein has preferred W.A.No.991 of
2026 and this Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2026 disposed of the said
Writ Appeal with an observation that the respondent-Corporation would give
an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1/writ petitioner therein and the
appellant therein and the order of status quo was extended till the next thirty
days. Therefore, similar order be passed in the present Writ Appeal.

5

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and on
consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the considered view that if objections are made by respondent
No.1/writ petitioner in the background facts and circumstances referred to in
the common order under appeal on the building permission granted in favour
of the appellant, the respondent-Corporation is required to consider and deal
with the same in terms of the relevant provisions of the applicable
Municipalities Act/Municipal Corporation Act. As such, the impugned
direction of the learned writ Court without making any observation on the
merits of the case of the parties does not deserve any interference. However,
the learned writ Court has also directed that the decision should be taken by
the respondent-Corporation within a period of thirty days only. Till then, the
status quo shall be maintained in respect of the structures existing on the
lands mentioned in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’.

8. In that process of consideration, the respondent-Corporation would
give an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the
appellant. The decision, if not taken, be taken by the respondent-Corporation
within a period of thirty days from today. The order of status quo shall
remain till the next thirty days.

6

9. Accordingly, the instant Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ


__________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J

Date: 17.09.2026
MD