The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstarces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in their property bearing H.No.4-6-1 55, 4-6-1551A, 4-6-11;411 and 4-6- 154111A, Opp. to lvlurricipal Commercial Complex, Peddapalli without issuing any notification for acquisition of the same and without paying the c,ompensation pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order o' orders may deem fit and proper in Lhe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. G RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent nO.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.5354 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4

2. The petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the house bearing No.4-6-155 and No.4-6-155/A, 4-6- l54ll and, 4-6-154lllA, admeasuring 770 square yards, opposite Municipal Commercial Complex, Janda Chowrasta, Peddapalli Town and Mandal, Peddapalli District, on the strength of registered Gift Settlement Deeds bearing document Nos.2103 of 2014 and 907 of 2016, dated,25.06.2014 and,22.02.2016, respectively. In proof of the same, they have filed copies of gift settlement deeds, sanction plan and property tax receipts etc. Thus, they are in possession of the subject property. They have been paying property tax to respondent No.4 Municipality

3. There is a proposal for widening of road. Respondent No.4 marked 4 feet width all along 70 feet length of the subject property with an intention to widening the road. The said markings would show that the petitioners' complex will be affected and there is no 2 KL,J W.l No.5354 of2025 marking of road widening on the opposite side of the subject propefty. If the said roacl widening is undertaken by respondent No.4. they have to measure flc,m centre of the road and acquire the property equally from both sicles to meet their'requirement for widening the road. The said decision of respondent No.4 Municipality is unilatelal. If the road widening is done by respondent No.4 in the manner slated above unilaterally, the petitioners will suffer huge loss since there are commercial r:stablishments in the subject property. Ther,:fore, they have subrnitt,;d a representation dated 17.02.2025 to respondent No.4 with a requer;t to acquire the property equally from both sides of the road. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.4 did not act upon the same and, on the othi:r hand, he is trying to dispossess/demolish the subject property withoui- following due procedure laid down under law. Challenging the sai<l action of respondent No.4, the petitioners filed the present writ petitic,n.

4. S/hereas, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.4, on instructions, would submit that there 1S proposal of road widening by respondent No.4 Municipality Technical Cc,mmittee of respondent No.4 will assist resporrdent No.4 in. the said r,rad widening including markings etc. There are some I 3 KL,J WP No.5354 of2025 unauthorized constructions and respondent No.4 will take action against the same by following due procedure laid down under law. However, respondent No.4 will also consider the representation dated

17.02.2025 submitted by the peiitioners.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 17.02.2025 submitted by the petitioners and if the property belongs to the petitioners or part thereof is required for any public purpose including road widening, respondent No.4 shall acquire the same strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY NT REGISTRAR ASSI CTION OFFICER To, Secretariat. Hvderabad

1. The Principal.Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, 2 The Director ot Town Planning and Urban Development, Hyderabad 3. The District Collector, Peddapaili, peddapalli Oistiict, fetan'gini 4. The Municipal Commissionei, Peddapalli Municipality, pedd"apalli, peddapalli . District, 5 6 7 I I KKS BS One CC to SRl. G RAJKUMAR Advocate [OpUC] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY SC FOR MC tOpUCl Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telanlana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI Two CD Copies 4 HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 t I o tr 1He Jr{ '/; l2l 25 (\( 7 a' l),.\: ,':,y' ORDER WP.No.5354 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @or'' .,5