High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 TEL CK 5801

V Hemavathi vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Telangana High Court · Decided on 7 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 24042 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

6 paragraphs · 273 words

Heard Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2.

Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 placed on record written instructions and submitted that respondent No.4 voluntary agreed to surrender portion of his property bearing H.No.4-47, Wanaparthy Road, Pebbair Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, which is being affected in the road widening and requested the Municipality to demolish a part of his building which is coming within eighty (80) feet wide road.

3.

Learned standing counsel submitted that it was decided to widen the road from Pebbair leading to Wanaparthy to 100' feet for public purpose by Municipal Council resolution No.602 dated 05.11.2022. However, at present width of the road has been approved to widen to only eighty (80) feet. The property of respondent No.4 which is being affected in the proposed road widening will be demolished within one (1) week.

4.

Recording the aforesaid submissions of learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of.

5.

This Court by order dated 24.07.2026 issued notice to respondent No.4 and permitted the petitioner to take out personal notice to respondent No.4. However, notice has not been served on him. As this order is passed without going into the merits, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. If respondent No.4 is in any way aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. No order as to costs.

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