High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in proceeding with laying of the road through the petitioners' plots in Sy.No.228lA and 2291U, situated at Ballepalli village, Jayanagar Colony, Division No.3, within Khammam Municipal Corporation limits, Khammam, without any notice and without following the due process of Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps without following the due process bf Law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti,rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the n:spondent authorities to forthwith stop layirrg of the road through the p,etitione,rs' plots in Sy.No.22BlA and 2291U' situated at Ballepalli village, Jayanagar colcny, Division No,3, within Khamm'am Municip,al corporation limits, Khammam, wi-trout following the due process of Law, pend ng disposal of the main Writ Detition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Resp,:ndent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Resprrndent Nos.2 and 3: SRI P. SREEDAR RAO, SC FOR KHAMMAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the fr>llowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENryAS RAO uIRIT PETITION N0.15001 0F 2025 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropiate Writ, Ordir or Direction, more particuLarlg one in the nahtre of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities tn proceeding with laging of the road through the petitioners plots in Sg.No.228/A and 229/U, situated at Bauepdtt Village, Jaganagar Colong, Diutsion No.3, u_tithin Khammam Municipal Corporation limits, Khammam, without any notice and uithout follolulng the due process of Law as being illegat, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional qnd uiolatiue of Anicles, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and. consequentlg direct the respondent authoities not to tqke ang coercive steps utthout following the due process of LaLU and to grant.._"

2. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of adrnission.

3. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Governrnent pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.l ald Sri P. Sreedar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Khammarn Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Brief facts of the case: The father of the petitioners purchased open site admeasuring 133.55 sq. yards in Sy.No.229/U, through registered sale deed bearing document No.22Z of 19g6, dated 24.09.1985 ) and also 2O3.:lil sq. yards in Sy'No'228/A through rr:gistered sale deed bcaring document No 216 of 1986' dated 20'O1 1986 situated at Ballepalli Viliage, erstwhile Baliepalli Grarn Palchayat' I{hammarn District, by paying valuable sa'le considr:ration' After his death. the retitloners have inherited the above srtd properties and they are i:r peaceful possession and enjovmenl of the same and the' Bal1c1la1li Gram Panchayat is rnerged inlo Khammam Municipal Ccrporation. The petitioners averr(rd that on 02.O5.2025 , r3spondent Nos'2 arld 3 durnpecl the kankzrra stones for the pltrporll of laying the road in the petitioners' land without even issuing any notice ald without givil-rg opp ortunity' The petitioners fuI.her averred that they have approach":d respondent No.2 and sr.rb mitted a representation on oll.o5.2ol25 requesting them n,tt to lrlv the road from the petitioners' lald zrnd except the above said prcperties, they are not having an1'other'lald and the lancL is very r,aluable property. The respondent corporation without conside ring llte said representation proceeded to 1ay the road' Hence, the rvrjt Petition. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners submi tted that the 5. respondents, '.r'ithout issuing any notice and withourt following the due prccedul'e as contemplated under the provisiorrs of the Right to Fair Corrtl;ensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition' , ..i \ 3 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to, as the Act'), are trying to lay the road from the petitioners' land and the same is in gross violation of the, principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the petitioners have approached respondent No.2 ald submitted representation on 03.05.2O25. Without considering the same and without passing any order, the respondcnts are proceeded to lay the road.

6. Per cor.tra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the respondent Corporation is not laying a new road, but they are laying the road in an existing road. Therefore, the question of following the due procedure as per the provisions of the Act does not aflse.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are clairning rights over the subject property basing on the registered documents dated

24.Og.1985 and 2O.O1.1986. The specifrc clairn of the petitioners is that the respondents, withorlt issuing notice and without following the rnandatory procedure as per the Act, are laying road from the petitioners land. The petitioners have already submitted a representation before respondent No.2 on O3.O5.2O25 and the I I l I I I I t I I . I I 4 respon(lenl (lorporation has not passed anv order' on the said represenl atlorl

8. Tzrking irLto consideration the facts and circutr stances of the case, this Cor rt dccms it appropriate to direct rcspondent No.2 CorporzLtion :,r cronsider the representation subnritted by the petitioners dated O3.O5.2025 and pass appropriirte orders in accordancc rvi -h lart,, after giving opportunitv of pr:r'sonal hearing to the p,et,itiorLcrs, within a period of three (3) u,eeks from the date of receipt of a ,:opv of this order. It is necdless to observe that the petitioners arrr entitled to raise all the grounds s'lti,11 . arc available under law l>ef r re respondent No .2 .

9. With Lhc above direction, the writ petition is rli.;posed of. No order as 1() co i ts. Mr s,:cllareous petitions pending, if any, shall st and closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANI REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Dr:velopment pepartment, Serr:retariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad The Commissi,:rer Khammam, Khammam Municipal Corporation. The Assrstant C)ity Planner, Khammam l\ilunicipal Corporation, (hammam. One CC to Sri harunakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ]w_o. CC_9 to G_P for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri [). Sre6dar Rao, SC for Khimmjm Municipal Corporation[OP LIC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J 4 E 6 7 TJ GJP rtgEF,t'6f=:l._--<--:?r--'r-- 2 ]:r'l.l -;! -:!l{r,i*rt: -=-If:-'r, ,*' ,." t ==".-***-.* .*,''q..,*1' .t' !1 HIGH COURT VACATION COURT DATED:1410512025 ."7 :;l I .s \s\ (r, .: .,; , I, i ORDER WP.No.15001 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /0 1.,4 /2 ,/, /4 5