Sri Lingala Bushanaiah v. The State ofTelaugana

sRl. LINGA_14 PRAKASH, s/o. sri. L. chandraiah Aged 62 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-42, Bhongirpally (v), shabad firandal, R.R. District, T.S

SRl. LINGALA|NAryDAN4, S/o. Sri. L. Chandraiah Aged 58 years, Occ. Govt. Servant, R/o. H.No.2-42, Bhongirpally (V), Shabad Mandal, R.R. Dist, T.S. 5. sRl. LINGALA B. _RAMULU, s/o. sri. L. chandraiah Aged 57 years, occ. Pastor, R/o. H.No. 2-42, Bhongirpally (V), Shabad (M), R.R. Dist, T.S.,

sRl. LINGALA MANIKYAM, s/o. sri. L. chandraiah Aged 56 years, occ. Pastor, Rio. H.No. 2-42, Bhongirpally (V), Shabad Mandal, R.R. Di-st, T.S 7. sR!. LINGALA SUDHEER, s/o. sri. L. chandraiah Aged 54 years, occ. Advocate, R/o. H.No.2-42, Bhongirpally (U, Shabad Mantal, R.R. Dist, T.S. 8. SRl. LING4LA SUDHAKAR, S/o. Sri. L. Chandraiah Aged 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-42, Bhongirpally (v), shabad {vlaniial, R.R.-Dist, T.S., 9. sMT. L. LAVANYA, wo. L. sudheer, aged about 50 years, occ. Private Job, R/o. Bhongiripally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District AND

The State of Telangqna, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildihg, HYD. ...PETITIONERS

Metropolitan Commissioner, Director of Planning-1, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The RDO, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

The Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .RESPONDENTS Petitiol under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus, declaring action of the Respondent No.2 for not consider pelitioners objection, dated 18-11-2025 and 19-1 1-2025 to the notification in the proceedings DIRPRO. No.10691-ppt CUADVTI ,tt2O2S-26 issued U/Sec 15 (3) of HMDA Act, 2008 and request to change the alignment of the proposed green field radial road - ll in the Sy.No.47l'l &20 of Bhongiripally Village, Shabad Mandal, R.R. District is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to tl,e law and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to consider petitioners ob.iection and change the alignment of road without effecting lands in Sy.No.47l1 , 4712, 16, 18,20 & Sy.No.22, of notification in the proceedings DIRPRO. No l0691- PP/CL/ADW1 t2025-26 issued U/Sec.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 47/1,42/2, 16, 1g, 20 &22, admeasuring Ac. 1O-20 guntas at Bhongiripally Village, Shabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. It is further submitted that the Metropol:.tan Commissioner, Director of planning-I, Hyderabad, HMDA -- respondent No.2 issued public notification on 14.ll.2o:24 inviting objections and suggestions from the general public re; Sarding proposed road widening and missing link road by exercising powers under Section 15 Sub-Section (3) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 20Og with respect to the proposed Greenfield Radial Road_II, connecting from Outr:r Ring Road (ORR) at Kotwalguda and extending up to HMR limits at Chityal Village on NH-167. Subsequent to the issuance of the notification, the petitioners filed objections on t ,/ 3

18.11 .2025 and 19.1 1 .2025. But the said objections were not considered and no action has been initiated upon the sarne. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narsimha Goud, *'.. learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, would submit that all the objections received from the general public are to be placed before respondent No.1 It is further submitted the State Government has to take further decision and that the objections of the general public have already been called for

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.2

5. Recording the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents, since the notification has been issued by respondent No.2 and the petitioners have responded accordingly with a copy marked to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the respondent No.2 shall forward the objections received from the petitioners to respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 considering the petitioners'objections shall take further course of action strictly in accordance with law. 4

6. v/ith the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Tht:re shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscelraneous applications if any pendin;3 in this petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA AISSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Principal Secret?y,_ Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departrnent, Secretaria{ Buirding, rhe state of relangana,-nvoerJuio.

2. Metrop, clit an Commissioter, Director of Planning-|, Hyderabad Metropolitan Develo; rment Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 3. The Dis'trict Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The RDO, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Tahsildar, Shabad tvlandat, Ranga Reddy District 6. One CC to SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE, Advocate [OpUC] 7. one cc to sRl v. NARSTMHA GouD, sc FoR HMDA, Advocate lopuc] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

Two CD Copies N. PVL BS HIGH GOURT DATED:0510212026 ,i rI{- \} / rfa /l]26 ,1 uU ,;i.€ ,, \.),o i1 ,t DParCrtri! ORDER WP.No.3441 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS \ l. 1/