BASANTHI DEVI KOLAR|YA v. consequently not :( ( .ruse or any damage to the

Petition unrk:r !,ection'151 CPC praying that in the circurrslances stated in the affidavit filed ir s rnport of the petition, the High Court may b: prleased to issue a direction, direct ng fl-e Respondents not to cause any loss b1' dr;molition in the Petitioner's G+2 tr,il, ng D.No. 1-6-223, (old 1-6-32) old 1-466-Al, (Sweet Shop) Kazipet tvlain Road. lanumakonda District with regard to the lvidening of the road initiated under the l- rd Acquisition pending disposal of the [\4zrin Writ Petition in the interest of justrc <: Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel for the for the for the for the for the for the Peti'ioner: SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI Re srrondents No. 1 to 7: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS Re s rondents No. 2: SRI PASHAM MOHIT Re srrondents No. 3: MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAIG R.e srrondents No.4 & 5: CHANDRAS SEKHAR.N Re s,rondents No. 6: MADISHETTY RAMU The Court made lhe 'ollowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.9146 of 2o2s ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.pasham Mohit, learned standing counsel for GWMC appearing for respondent No.2. with their consent this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the threshold itself. 2 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- "to declare the action of the Respondents in trying to further widening the Northern side road by demolishing the Petitioner's G+2 mulgr in Municipa-l House No. 1-6 -223, (old 1-6-32) old 1-466-A) Kazipet Main Road of Ilanumakonda District for the purpose of further r.videning the Road from KozipeL Marn Road to Hyderabad as illegal arrd arbitrary action on the part of the said Respondents and consequently not to cause or any damage to the Petitioner G+2 mulgi in Municipal House No. 1-6 -223, (okl 1-6 32) old l-466-A) t1.e Kazipet, Kazipet Main Road, Halumzrkonda District.,,

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject property having acquired the same through registered document bearing No.29OS of 1994. Earlier, when the respondent No.2 tried to demolish the subject property, the petitioner filed W.p.No.l94l4 of i994 and this Court uid_e order dated 20.13J,D94 disposed of the said r.r.rit petition and accordingly / ,/ i 2 ',! r, I o 9t 5 0t 2025 after verifvlnrl r, : title deeds and possessory interest, tlre respondent No.2 allorvr:d lt. petitioner to re-construct the subje c' r'-rulgi to the exlent of 1lj rrrgth and 1 1' feet in width. 4 . Lear n,:,1 c '.rrrsel for the petitioner submits that cn 1O.O2.2025, news was p'rbli red in Sakshi Daily Paper (Telugri), rlhcrcin thc local MLA statei thaL he respondent authorities are takin5l ste ps to widen the Kazipert rrai road and the Municipal Authorities ri ould also give notice to 1-he rl :,;rs and others in that locality. Furt her casc of the petitioner is 1J rrt if the said road widening u,ork I rkes place, the pctitione r:.; rroperty may be demolished and Llre respondent authorities ir i h I irt issuing any notice to the petittorrer z nd without following rl tLr 1; rcedure contemplated under law arr: pr.tposing thc said work. Arg11r r '",ed by the same, this writ petition is lrlcd

5. Learnec c ' unspl for the petitioner submits that l-er I is no need for fur[her rvicle ing of road and further submits tha t rh 3 petitioner along witb tl.c ,:rer locality people had approacl-red tlle rcspondent "t' authority rtr cl s :,-ed the same, however there was n( 'cs,ponse from the responclt:rr. s

6. Learrt:r[ I ending counsel appearing for responCcnt No.2, on instructtotrrt, :,':bmits that the respondent autboritics, as on date, have not conrcn 1,lated to acquire the petitioner,s prope -ly and rvould further sul)m tsi i-Lat if the petitioner,s property is reqrrit-ec as per [he r 3 NVSI(. J wP No 9t46 0t 2025 masLer plan, the respondent authorities would follow due process of law before initiating action on the subject property.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to direcl the respondent authorities to follow due process of law, before initiating any action in the matter.

8. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law before initiating action on the subject property.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed /ITRUE COPY// Sol-r'r' osMAN ALI BAlc SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFIC ER To, ecretariat Buildings' (GWMC). 1 . Prl. Secretary, ( R and B DePt ) Dr. B.R. Ambed Saifabad, HYderabad, The State of Telangana. al MuniciPal Corporation r Warang 2. Commissioner, Warangal, The Greate s b;;;ii.';bnerA/ice- Chairman Sai Nagar, Hanumakonda District, The " XXi<,'r'iiriUrGn'Development Authoritv-(K U D A)' .X,,T;Hm55[i"Ult:v['.glS'*""'*UilllltYi3l,",,%fi oo%*." 5. if ;ffi 6i'Ni#,s;;' #G'ilini -siaie " ii.en.i.c.), Haiumakondi, Hanumakonda-District' G. Proiect Director, wrrrngiiinJli'iiiilt tt'gri*'v'Authoritv' (N H A I ) ;. ii,:j E'.i;;iirii Eigr*ijh an{ej, circuit 6uesi House Road' I ffi;tc i;'iRiBANKAiilr- r'rrAr'rbHnrut ngyop'!" toPUCl 6. i'iJ" dd;i"-ci?oR noio3 eul-LDir'rcs' Hisr' court for the state ot ro oH'ic'il dFi ijnsunu MoHlr Advocate tqPUCl -- 'il SliE 66 i" rtr-riizn sAriiiltAH BAIG Advoclate [oPUC] Hanumakonda,HanumakondaDlstnct . noao l'.u l9qotr co rpo ration Telanoana. IOUTI ). ..'Gn#"-

12.one cC to Ctl A 'IDRAS SEKHAR'N Advocate [OPUC] i3.il dd i" rul,cd ljHrrrv RAMU Advocate [oPUC] 14.Two CD CoPir>:; / BGS. LS dt( \ I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 021(ttt12925 \ \ ORDER WP.No.9146 ('f 2025 ,',e STAf t 1 \ o; 21 $N 2t?5 \ r-\. '( t c, <\ ,\ i ( q J o o I OgspllC $' I o ...;, DISPOSING C 'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT (:( }STS c4( 2N (16