The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the Director General of Police to ascertain if the Cherlapally police station of Malkajgiri Police Commissionerate was operating the police station from a private building after the officials occupied it illegally and unauthorisedly.
Justice E.V. Venugopal of the HC also directed the DGP to consider the representation given by the private building owner to ensure the Cherlapally police vacated his private building from where the police station was being run. The building owner wanted the police to stop illegal occupation of his property. The judge disposed of the writ petition field by the building owner Tirumala Laxmanacharyulu, a priest, instructing the DGP to act appropriately in accordance with the law in the matter within three months.
The petitioner contended that he purchased the building located at EC Nagar in Cherlapally, spread over 240 square yards, from one Kanduri Dhanarupa through a registered sale deed in 2015. He let out the building for a monthly rent of ₹36,000 to Cherlapally Notified Municipal Industrial Area Services Society through a rental agreement. As per the clauses of the agreement, the tenant had no right to sub-lease the property, he maintained.
He claimed the Society had sub-leased the building to Cherlapally police. The Society did not pay the rents as per the agreement, the petitioner charged. He submitted a representation to the DGP on February 27 to direct the Cherlapally Station House Officer to vacate the building and hand over the property to him. The government counsel informed the court that the Society let out the building to Cherlapally police based on the rental agreement it had with the building owner.
The Society had paid all the rent arrears through bank cheque and hence the question of non-payment of arrears did not arise, the counsel clarified. The judge noted the rental agreement the Society had with the building owner had expired in 2024. As per ninth condition of the agreement, the Society was barred from sub-leasing the premises to others without the consent of the building owner, the judge observed. This was contrary to law, the order said.
The SHO was “expected to verify the title and authority vested in the Society to create such a sub-tenancy”, the judge said. “Having failed to undertake such verification, the SHO cannot claim any lawful right to occupy the premises,” Justice E.V. Venugopal noted. Such occupation of the building was liable to be treated as illegal and unauthorised, the order said.
Published - July 14, 2026 09:05 pm IST