Considered the submissions of Sri v. Brahmaiah Chowdary

in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 6 not to dispossess the petitioner from his private patta land situated in Sy.No. 514lAA in an extent of Ac.3.2400 guntas situated at Dhamsalapuram village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District any further for widening the 30' feet wide road to 100' feet wide road, without following due process of law, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S & 6: AGP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR RDDDY IIRIT PETITION No. 1328 of2O25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- '...to issue a urit, order or direction, nnre pdrt a.tLarlg one in the naa,re oJ Writ of Mand@mus de<:aLring the action of Lhe respondenls 2 Lo 6 i4 trying to dispossess the petitioner from his piuate pottd land situated tn SA.No.,14/AA in an extent of Ac.3.24OO gunto-s situdted at Dharnsaldputam uitloge, Klnmmtm Ubrott Mandal, Khammam District, und.er the guise of widening the eristing 30 feet wide road- to 100 feet wide road, uttthaut following due process of lau ds illegd, arbitrary, uiolatiue of principtes oJ natllroi justice and o,lso contrary to the Articles 14, 19, 21 aad 3OO A of Con-stitutton of India and conseqlentlA direct the respondents 2 to 6 no, to dispossess Lhe petiho\er from his piuate patta land situated in Sa.No.514/ AA ln atl exTetlt of Ac.3.24oo WLt@s situdted @t Dham.salapuram villoge, Khnmrnam Urbdn Man-dal, Khammam Dist'ict any furtehr for widening the 30 feet uide road to 1OO Jeet uide road, u.)ithout fottolring due prot:ess of lau and to pass such other order or orders as thb Hon'ble Couft maA deem fit and proper in the circutustances oJ the cq.se'.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1039 of 2025, dated O9.01.2O25 and therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the said fact.

4. In view of the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order, dated O9.01.2O25 passed by tJ is Court in W.P.No.1039 of 2025. No costs 2 CVBR, J w_1328 2025

5. As a scquel, miscellaneous petitions pendrng, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/- I-. Vl ASS\\TANT JAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR JJ!; ON OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of Telangana: To,

2. The District Collectol' Khammam District at Khammam' 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Division' Khammam District' 4. The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District' 5. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department' Khammam' 6. ihe Superintending Engineer,-Roads and Buildings Department' Raparthi - -Khammam District Nagar, Khammam, Z. dn" CC to SRI V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY' Advocate IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] g.TwoCCstoGPFoRRoADS&BUILDINGS,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies (Along with the copy of order dated 09'01'2025' in W'P'No'1039 of 2025) BSR GJP Yt- i i ']-. -:r-i'. !!ili:q.' r' -.t I HHIG COURT I :l DATED 1010112025 ORDER *r.J o.1328 of 2025 c of{ 1HE s 14 c 0 7 JUt 2025 ,r $. .\: t -rr-9 DIS tl SING OF THE WRIT PETITION, I i l, OUT COSTS i t I .wl" \q-- <$f i : I I I I ,l l.t'" I I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1O39 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "....to issue a wit, order or direction more parttcularlg one in th.e nature of urit of Mandamus decloing the oction of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their piuate patto lands in an ertent of Ac.1.28 guntas situated in S7-No.S1O/A/ 1 ond in on extent of Ac.O.34 guntas situated in Sg.No.S1S/AA and land in an ertent of Ac.1.2O guntas in Sg.No.51O/A/2/ 1 and in an ertent of Ac.O.O4 guntas of SA.No.SLO/A/2/3 ond Ac.0.35 guntas situated in Sg.No.S15/A/ I situated at Dhamsalapuram uillage, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammom Distict under the guise of widening the eristing 3O feet wide road to l OO feet uid-e road- uithout following due process of la ut as illegal arbitrary uiolatiue of pinciples of natural justice and also contrary to the Articles 14, 21 and 3OOA of Constttution of India and consequentlg direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to dispossess the petitioners from their piuate patta lands in an qctent of Ac.1.28 guntas situated in Sg.No.510/A/ 1 and in an ertent of Ac.O.34 guntas situated in Sq.No.SLS/AA and land in an ertent of Ac.1.2O guntas in Sg.No.51O/A/2/ I and in an extent of Ac.0.O4 guntas of Sg.No.51O/A/2/3 and Ac.O.35 guntas sihlated. in Sg.No.515/A/ 1 situated at Dhomsolapuram uillage, Khnmmam Urban Manda[ Khommam District ang further for taidening the 3O feet uLide road to 1OO feet u.tide road uithout following due process of \aw...."

2. Considered the submissions of Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads ald Buildings appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 2

3. It is stated that the father of petitioner No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.28 guntas in Sy.No.510/A/ I and Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.SIS/A situated at Dhamsalapuram Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, and after his demise, the said propert5r has been inherited by the petitioners and the revenue authorities have mutated their names in the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. The case of the petitioners is that during the lifetime of their father, when the respondent-authorities have tried to lay a new road in the lands in Sy.No.SlO /A/l by widening the existing road without following the due process of law, he was constrained to file W.P.No.l7O39 of 2Ol7 on the file of this Court and by order dated la.O5.2ol7, this Court has directed the respondents not to meddle with the private property of the petitioner therein except, in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though this Court by order dated 18.O5.20i7 in W.p.No.17039 of 2017 has directed the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the private property of the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein are trying to dispossess them from the subject property, J without following the due process of Iaw, under the guise of widening the existing 3O feet wide road to 100 feet wide road ald the said action on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 6 is illegal and arbitrary.

5. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, placed instructions of respondent No.S-the Executive Engineer, R & B Division, before this Court, wherein it is stated that the Government has accorded Administrative Sanction for the road "Widening and Strengthening of Khammam-Kodumuru (Via) Allipuram road from km O/0 - 12lO including Two Minor Bridges in Khammam District (Working reach from 0/3 - 7/O)" under Central Road Infrastructure Fund (CRIF) Scheme for Rs.2500.00 Lakhs and work is in progress. It is also stated that the road from Khammam to Kodumuru belongs to R & B Department and having 3O meters Right of Way (ROW) and the road is being widening within the available ROW without encroaching the petitioners land

6. In view of the above submissions and since it is stated that the respondent-authorities are strictly proceeding with the road widening works by following due process of law, this writ petition 4 is disposed of by directing the respondents not to interfere with the lands of the petitioners beyond the ROW. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application seeking compensation, if the respondents encroach upon any portion of their lands beyond the ROW. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: O9.01.2025 SlIS C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J