High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Municiparity in marking about Ac. 0.20 gts of rand of the writ petitioner in sy.No 344/4 situates at Achampet mandar proper for the purpose of formation cc Road towards Valapafla village without aqquisition as per law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional the respondents may be directed, if required for public purpose, to acquire the said rand as per raw and to pay compensation to the writ petitioner before formation of the road. t.A. : I OF 2016(WP MP. NO: 2220 OF 20161 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from laying of cc road towards Valapafla village though the land of petitioner covering about an extent of Ac.0.20 ( ts of in Sy.No 344lA situates at Achampet mandal proper, pending final dispc;al of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.HANUMANTH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN-I RBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE counser for the Respondents No.3' S|'Ioffi [[i,[tf ; tED oY, The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE I.AXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'TY WRIT PETITION No.1 753 of2Ol6 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No'3 in marking the land of the writ petitioner to an extent of Ac 0 20 guntas in Survey No.344/A situated at Achampet Mandal' for ttre purpose of formation of CC Road towards Valapatla Village without acquisition' as per law, as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief' 2. Heard Sri V.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for thc pctitioncr rcprcscnted that the petitioner 3. is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac'2'36 guntas of Suwey No.344/A, having acquired thc samc from the ancestors' that the petitioner came to know that rcspondent No 3 has earmarked tl.e land admeasuring Ac.0'20 guntas for formation of CC road towards Valapatla Village and taking steps to lay the road; that the petitioner has protested the said action of the respondent to lay the road and submitted his objections dated I l O l 20 16 to rcspondent No'3 not to Iay tJle road through his land, bul respondent No 3 was proceeding with laying of CC road on instructions ol local corporators' u'ho have political differences with the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, this present writ petition is trled learned counsel for the petitioner wou Id submit that the 4. respondent No.3 has no authority to lay CC road through the land belonging to the petitioner without following any procedure and withotlt 2 acquiring the same He further submits that if the rar r of the petitioner is required for taying of CC road, the respondents h.e to acquire the same before taking further steps. In the present cas(., the respondents have not acquired the land of petitioner before procee,l ng u,ith laying of CC road, which is contrary to settled law. Hence, pnr. ed this Court to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 L,,referring to thc counter filed by respondent No.3 would submit that le grandfather of thc petitioner has purchased land to an extent o[ r\ . 1. lO guntas in Survey No.344/A situated at Achampet V lage and v,landar under a rcgistered sale deed No.92g of lggl dated 2I.0g.I9U as per which on trvo sides of thc land i.e., westem and northern side s , there was cattle track. He further submits that the respondenr ras undertakcn conversion of metal road which was in existence sincr, I l4O on northern side. On request of the villagers, the existing metal rcz I was converted into CC road and the same was completed in the firsr , cek of .Januan,, 2016. He further submits that respondent No.3 has nc. int.erfered with thc land of the petitioner and in fact the existing netal road was convcrted into CC road. He finally submitted that rl-( wnt petition is devoid of any merit and Iiable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of material placed on record thzr r grandfather purchased land to an extent of Ac. l.lO No.3.14lA situated at Achampet Village and Manclat salc deed No.928 of 1981 dated 21.08.19g1 and rhi_ surrounded by cattlc track on two sides i.e., wester r and northern. According to respondent No.3, the cattle track was rn cx stcnce since 40 I lntas in Survey the petitioner's ;trid propert-y, is r nder registered I 3 years on the northern side of the petitioner's property and at t]le request of villagers, the metal road has been converted into CC road and no Iand of the petitioner was affected while formation of CC road' Since the respondents have only converted the existing metal road into CC road. The petitioner failed to place any material on record to show that respondent No.3 had laid CC road through the land of the petitioner.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has failed to establish that CC road has been laid through the petitioner's land' Accordingly, this writ Petition is dismissed, however tiberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if new cause of action arises There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closcd. SD/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI S STANT REGIST /,TRUE COPY// i ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CCtoSRl V.HANUMANTH RAO, Advocate. [O cl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OU[

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY/IIC. toPUCI

5. Two CD Copies. BSK 4+- HIGH COURT DATED:24l1112025 t * . rtl-c SLiIt- iJ ,.rl -z t I ) lsper ORDER WP.No.1753 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ {,,t.