Eragadindla Laxmamma, vs The State of Telangana, Advocate - GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV — WP/17611/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Next hearing 25-Jun-2026

CNR: HBHC010360822026

Filing Number

WP/26138/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/17611/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

E.V. Venugopal

Coram

E.V. Venugopal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

TAKE ACTION ON ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ( 40 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Eragadindla Laxmamma,

    Adv. RAPOLU BHASKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Telangana, Advocate - GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

  2. 2.The Commissioner,

  3. 3.The District Collector,

  4. 4.The District Panchayath Officer,

  5. 5.The Divisional Panchayath Officer,

  6. 6.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer,

  7. 7.The Mandal Panchayath Officer,

  8. 8.The Grampanchayath,

  9. 9.Shaik Raziya,

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Jun-2026

    Admission (Panchayat Raj)

    E.V. Venugopal

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    E.V. VenugopalView PDF

    On 11.06.2026, the High Court of Telangana admitted the writ petition and issued notice to all respondents. Most respondents (through their respective government pleaders and standing counsel) waived further notice, while respondent No.9 was to be served personally by the petitioner's counsel via SPAD. The case was adjourned to 25.06.2026 for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 11-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17611/2026

casestatus.in Summary

On 11.06.2026, the High Court of Telangana admitted the writ petition and issued notice to all respondents. Most respondents (through their respective government pleaders and standing counsel) waived further notice, while respondent No.9 was to be served personally by the petitioner's counsel via SPAD. The case was adjourned to 25.06.2026 for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case