Dr. Sushma Bela vs State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV — WP/15925/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th June 2026.
CNR: HBHC010323302026
Filing Number
WP/23540/2026
Filing Date
04-May-2026
Registration No
WP/15925/2026
Registration Date
04-May-2026
Judge
B.Vijaysen Reddy
Coram
B.Vijaysen Reddy
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
MISCELLANEOUS ( 74 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Decision Date
15-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Dr. Sushma Bela
Adv. V ROHITH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
-
2.The Municipal Council
-
3.Sri Rangineni Surya Prakash
-
4.Sri Rangineni Srinivas Rao
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Jun-2026
B.Vijaysen ReddyView PDF
The Telangana High Court disposed of Dr. Sushma Bela's writ petition without entering into the merits, directing the Municipal Council of Adilabad to complete its enquiry regarding unauthorized construction at premises H.No. 1-2-13/B/2 within four weeks, after serving notice on all parties and obtaining legal advice on competing ownership claims. The court recognized that the matter involves disputed property ownership and possession between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, making it unsuitable for immediate judicial intervention without proper legal consideration of the civil rights involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Jun-2026
Admission (Municipal Admn.)
N.v.shravan Kumar
-
10-Jun-2026
Admission (Municipal Admn.)
N.v.shravan Kumar
-
09-Jun-2026
N.v.shravan KumarView PDF
-
09-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/15925/2026
The Telangana High Court disposed of Dr. Sushma Bela's writ petition without entering into the merits, directing the Municipal Council of Adilabad to complete its enquiry regarding unauthorized construction at premises H.No. 1-2-13/B/2 within four weeks, after serving notice on all parties and obtaining legal advice on competing ownership claims. The court recognized that the matter involves disputed property ownership and possession between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, making it unsuitable for immediate judicial intervention without proper legal consideration of the civil rights involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts