Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday, March 12, suggested that the state government consider establishing special tribunals to deal with disputes related to municipal building permissions, illegal constructions, sealing of properties, and demolitions.
The observation came from a division bench comprising Chief Justice Apares Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin while hearing an appeal concerning a dispute over building permission.
HC notes high number of municipal petitions
The bench noted that a significant number of petitions related to municipal building approvals and alleged illegal constructions are being filed directly before the High Court. It was observed that setting up dedicated tribunals for such matters could help in resolving disputes more quickly while also reducing the burden on the High Court.
According to the bench, specialised forums dealing exclusively with municipal disputes could streamline the adjudication process and prevent constitutional courts from being overwhelmed with routine civic matters.
The judges also indicated that judicial officers could be assigned to these tribunals if the state government decides to establish them.
Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy informed the court that the suggestion would be conveyed to the state government for consideration.
Kothapet case before Bench
The observations were made during the hearing of an appeal filed by Srinivas Yadav of Habsiguda and DE Nagaraju of Malakpet.
The appellants challenged a building permission granted to Radheshyam Constructions in October 2025 for construction on land located in Survey Nos. 106 and 107 at Kothapet in Uppal mandal of Medchal–Malkajgiri district.
The petitioners alleged that authorities granted the permission without adequately verifying the ownership and title of the land.
Earlier, a single judge of the High Court had dismissed their petition, stating that the municipal commissioner had already verified the title and ownership before issuing the building approval. The court also observed that the petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to support their demand for cancellation of the permission.
Dissatisfied with that order, the petitioners approached the division bench with an appeal.
After hearing the arguments, the bench adjourned the matter for further hearing to April 15.
