Maddela Narsimha vs The Malkjagiri Municipal Corporation Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV — WP/18319/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HBHC010377822026

Filing Number

WP/27356/2026

Filing Date

12-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/18319/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

B.Vijaysen Reddy

Coram

B.Vijaysen Reddy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

MISCELLANIOUS ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Maddela Narsimha

    Adv. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

  2. 2.Anagandula Ganga Babu

  3. 3.Mohammed Amhed Uddin

  4. 4.Mohd. Ghouse Uddin,

  5. 5.Kalakonda Manemma,

  6. 6.Kankhanala Ravinder Rao,

  7. 7.Chennakeshava Saivarun Mudiraj,

  8. 8.Nagapuri Nlarasimha Chary,

  9. 9.Gopidi Sukha Jeevan Reddy,

  10. 10.Madas Sanjeeva Rao

  11. 11.G. Sunanda,

  12. 12.Nazama Shaheen,

  13. 13.Shaik Fatima Jahanara,

  14. 14.Md. Farzana Begum,

  15. 15.Md. Samiuddin,

  16. 16.Mir Khaleel Ali,

  17. 17.Mohammed Rafiuddin,

  18. 18.Mohd. Nayeem Uddin,

  19. 19.Nizampuram Geetha Rani,

  20. 20.Lattupally Suvarna

  21. 21.B. Revanth Reddy,

  22. 22.B. Venkat Reddy,

  23. 23.B. Vineela Reddy,

  24. 24.Kandukuri Nandini,

  25. 25.Malkajgiri Dayanand,

  26. 26.Dabli Ashok,

  27. 27.Runwal Babu Rao,

  28. 28.S. Chandrakanth,

  29. 29.Madhavaram Janardhan Rao,

  30. 30.Madhi Narayana Reddy,

  31. 31.Madhi Ravinder Reddy,

  32. 32.Anandapu Srinivas,

  33. 33.Janumpally Srikanth Reddy,

  34. 34.Alla Gopal Reddy,

  35. 35.Parsi Sujatha,

  36. 36.Santakumari Gudapati,

  37. 37.Md. Abdul Khaleel,

  38. 38.Marri Navin Kumar Reddy,

  39. 39.Kondala Srinivas Sagar,

  40. 40.Konda Kalyan Chakravarthy,

  41. 41.Katta Shashikala,

  42. 42.Piratla Bhanu Murthy,

  43. 43.Piratla Sarojini,

  44. 44.Pirtla Vijaya Lakshmi,

  45. 45.Salla Praveen Kumar,

  46. 46.Mettu Sri Ram Reddy,

  47. 47.Ramlal Jain,

  48. 48.A. Suresh Kumar,

  49. 49.K. Navaratheanam,

  50. 50.Shyamala Narsimha,

  51. 51.Desai Kasturi,

  52. 52.S. Bal Reddy,

  53. 53.Laxmamma,

  54. 54.Uppala Bhupal Reddy,

  55. 55.Uppala Madhava Reddy,

  56. 56.Bedugam Yashwanth,

  57. 57.Bedugam Manjula Srinivas,

  58. 58.Mohammed Amjed,

  59. 59.Sama Jaipal Reddy,

  60. 60.Sama Sri Pal Reddy,

  61. 61.S. Yella Reddy,

  62. 62.T. Shankar,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Malkjagiri Municipal Corporation Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

  2. 2.The Deputy Commissioner

  3. 3.The State of Telangana

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    B.Vijaysen ReddyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/18319/2026 Court Decision: The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, directing the Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation to refrain from interfering with petitioners' property possession pending compliance with legal procedures for the proposed 200-foot road widening project under H-CITI. Key Reasoning: The court found merit in petitioners' concerns that the municipal authorities failed to follow due process under Sections 146-147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court noted that offering Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) without proper land acquisition procedures and fair compensation violates Article 300A of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Admission (Municipal Admn.)

    B.Vijaysen Reddy

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/18319/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/18319/2026 Court Decision: The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, directing the Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation to refrain from interfering with petitioners' property possession pending compliance with legal procedures for the proposed 200-foot road widening project under H-CITI. Key Reasoning: The court found merit in petitioners' concerns that the municipal authorities failed to follow due process under Sections 146-147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court noted that offering Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) without proper land acquisition procedures and fair compensation violates Article 300A of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case