High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 TEL CK 5344

M/s. Magna Majestic Meadows Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd. vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Telangana High Court · Decided on 25 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 28369 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 254 words
3.

Sri K. Chenna Reddy, S/o. Srinivas Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ Pvt Employee, R/o. MIG-4103, Tellapur, Sangareddy, Telangana.

Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.3 alleging petitioner has constructed compound wall in the open layout thereby obstructing access to the neighbouring plot owners show-cause notice vide No.97MCT/TPS/2024 was issued for which petitioner has submitted reply dated 02.05.2025. Pending enquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice, respondent No.2 is trying to interfere with the compound wall constructed by the petitioner over the subject property i.e., Magna Majestic Meadows in Survey No.192/p of Kolluru Village, Tellapur Municipality, R.C. Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, and attempts are also being made to demolish compound wall.

3.

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that till conclusion of enquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice vide Lr.No.97MCT/TPS/2024 no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner.

4.

Recording the submissions of learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, the writ petition is disposed of.

5.

As this order is passed without entering into the merits, notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. If respondent No.3 is in any way aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.