Real estate disputes: Telangana HC urges state to consider setting up tribunals

Hyderabad: Telangana High Court on Thursday urged the state government to consider setting up special tribunals to handle disputes related to building permissions, illegal constructions, sealing, and demolitions across municipalities.

The court observed that such tribunals would help reduce the burden of cases reaching the High Court and ensure faster resolution of disputes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Apares Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin observed while hearing an appeal related to a land and building permission dispute.

HC says tribunals can ease case burden

During the hearing, the bench noted that many disputes relating to municipal building permissions and alleged illegal constructions are being directly filed before the High Court.

Establishing dedicated tribunals to handle such matters would help reduce the influx of petitions and also lessen the existing case load on the constitutional courts.

The bench suggested that the issue be discussed with the government and said that judicial officers could be allocated if the state decides to set up such tribunals.

Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy informed the court that he would bring the suggestion to the attention of the state government.

Dispute over building permission

The observations came during the hearing of an appeal filed by Srinivas Yadav of Habsiguda and DE Nagaraju of Malakpet, who challenged a building permission granted to Radheshyam Constructions.

The permission was issued 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 the authorities granted permission without properly verifying the title and ownership of the land.

Single judge order challenged

Earlier, a single judge of the High Court had dismissed the petition, stating that the municipal commissioner had verified the title and ownership rights of the property before granting the building permission.

The court also noted that the petitioners had failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify cancellation of the approval.

Challenging that order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the division bench.

After hearing the matter, the bench adjourned the case to April 15 for further hearing.