HC Directs HYDRAA to Remove the Signboard Erected on the 160-Sq-Yard Plot

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has directed HYDRAA to remove within 24 hours a signboard erected on a residential plot in Sahebnagar Kalan, observing that the agency's action was, at the prima facie stage, contrary to an earlier order passed by the court.

The court also restrained HYDRAA and the GHMC from interfering with the petitioners' possession of the property without following due process of law.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy issued the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed by T. Jhansi Rani and T. Ajay, who claimed ownership and possession of Plot No. 40, measuring 160 square yards, in Survey No.68, Officers Colony, Sahebnagar Kalan at Hayathnagar. The petition challenged HYDRAA's action in erecting a board on the property claiming the land and alleged that the officials were interfering with their peaceful possession despite an earlier judgment of the High Court.

They submitted that the agency had neither issued notice nor conducted any inquiry before claiming the land as belonging to the government. According to the petitioners, the building was constructed strictly in accordance with a sanctioned building plan, and the action of the authorities ignored the earlier directions of the High Court.

Earlier, the petitioners had challenged the revocation of their building permission issued by GHMC on November 19, 2024, as well as HYDRAA's demolition notice dated December 13, 2024. By a common order dated March 2, 2026, the High Court had set aside both the revocation letter and the demolition notice.

At the same time, the court had clarified that the authorities were free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if they found that any construction had been made on public land or involved encroachment. The petitioner’s counsel argued that without following due procedure, the HYDRAA officials forcibly entered the premises and erected the board.

Justice Vijaysen Reddy held that, prima facie, HYDRAA's action in erecting a board declaring the subject property as belonging to the agency was illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the common order previously passed by the High Court.

HC directs tahsildar`s explanation on giving directions for demolition of a compound wall

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the Serilingampally tahasildar to explain his orders for demolition of the structures in Plot No. 9/B in Survey No. 60 of Kondapur, Serilingampally mandal,

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing a petition filed by Pemmasani Sudha Rani, alleging that officials of the revenue department and HYDRAA illegally demolished a compound wall and a structure on her private property without issuing notice or following due process. The petitioner contended that the demolition was carried out despite official records and earlier court proceedings recognising the land as private property.

The petitioner stated that she had purchased the property through a registered sale deed in 1996 and as it was later declared as surplus land. The state government subsequently allotted the land to her through GO Ms. No. 257 dated February 29, 2008, after considering her application under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act.

Counsel S. Sridhar submitted that the government at that time also had also directed that her name be incorporated in the revenue, registration and survey records. He submitted that the revenue authorities had earlier attempted to interfere with the property in 2012, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court.

According to counsel, the court permitted the petitioner to construct a compound wall confined to her plot while reserving liberty to the authorities to initiate action in accordance with law if there was any deviation beyond the scheduled property.

Despite the earlier High Court order, the petitioner alleged, officials entered the property on October 4, 2025, demolished the compound wall and a watchman's room without issuing notice and attempted to dispossess her from the land.

HC rejects wife claim for permanent alimony for directly approaching HC , without filing application before family court

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has ruled that while exercising appellate jurisdiction it could not directly determine or award permanent alimony on an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) without the spouse first approaching the Family Court under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A division bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao refused to entertain the claim of a wife seeking `50 lakh as permanent alimony for the first time during the pendency of her appeal against a divorce decree issued by the Family Court at Nizamabad.

The appellant invoked the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC. The Bench noted that she had neither filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court nor sought such relief in the appeal. Instead, the claim was raised for the first time through the interlocutory application before the High Court.

The court observed that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically contemplated an independent application seeking permanent alimony, which must be supported by evidence enabling the court to assess the financial conditions of both parties. It pointed out that the appellant wife had produced no documentary material to justify her claim for `50 lakh and had also failed to place on record affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities of the parties. In the absence of such material, the bench held that it was not in a position to determine either the entitlement or the quantum of permanent alimony.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ‘Sukhdev Singh v Sukhbir Kaur’, the High Court reiterated that although a spouse (wife or husband) was entitled to seek permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the relief was discretionary and must be decided on the basis of pleadings, evidence and the conduct of the parties. Where such an application is not filed before the Family Court and the necessary evidence was absent, the appellate court could not itself undertake the exercise of fixing permanent alimony.

Accordingly, the division bench dismissed the application while granting liberty to the appellant-wife to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Family Court. The court also dismissed the wife's appeal and confirmed the Family Court's decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.