High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETtTtoNNO :154340F 2025 Between: lVohd AtherAltaf, S/o. Late r.,,?:?["".j*r;]H:i.i;b:;:luBHHrfl :,ffi [1lJt,f"Ti:?:Hffi?,lT[.;,33? AND .....PETITIONER o"p,,i,i""iiiffi yfl 3i#T"tr.H,l"i,ffi?:1,;::Et?,yt.,,oro

1. The State of Telanr

2. The Municipal Cour

3. Hyderabad Disaster c o m m i s s io n e r r;-,,],"r',Xfllf::i1 f,:ltfl fi"j$v.orrice ov iti c"."r"rri["#fii:8,i3:.'ffsset Protection Asency (HyDRAA), Rep 4. Sree Venkateshwara C^olony, Rep by its Secretary Sy.No.1 j 5, Nakenamour i:xtHJ:'_.J:;ffi ,":.. xxli,%:,:ilfl i:;:ur, :#,r,r&"isi"?fiIif r, Re p b y it s petition Under Articre 226 ot theconstitution or rndia #::T]ffil: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of [\4andamus decraring the actions of the Respondent No.2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of 149 Sq yards from his prot No.27 out of total extent of 565 Sq ygrcls 9f- f,1nO in Sy.No.1 1 5, situated at poppalaguda, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, _Ranga.Reddy District T.S., by trying to try a without considering the petitioner's Representation d1.22-o5-2025as arbitrary and illegal, in the lnterest of Justice. "RorO I.A.N O:1 O 2025 F Petition Under Sect the affidavit filed in suPP restrain the ResPondent property for an extent of 565 Sq Yards of land in Mandal, Ranga ReddY Di ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ort of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to No.2 from laying a road in a part of the Petitioner's 149 Sq yards from his Plot No 27 out of total extent of Sy.Uo.f 15, situated at Poppalaguda' Rajendra Nagar strict T.S., pending the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K'JAMALI Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No'2 : SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI Counsel for the Respondent No'3 : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the ResPondent No'4 : -- The Court made the following ORDER HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT ETITIO N No.15 434 0F 2025 P oRDER: (ORAL) nchani, Heard Mr. Mr. Laxmaiah Ka K. Jamali, Iearned counsel - for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. KoMuru pavan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for HyDRAA, appearing for respondent No.4, and perused the material available on record

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No.27, admeasuring 565 square yards, in survey No.1 .r5 situated at Poppalaguda, Rajendra Nagar Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.6362 of 2013 dated 01 ..10.2013. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property which is covered with wails and asbestos tin shed. Earrier, the petitioner used to run a Function Ha[ in the prope(y, and presenfly, there is a motor mechanic work shop in the property. on complaint lodged by respondent No.4, show cause notice dated 21 .12.2024, under Section 175 (2) and 180 (1) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 201g, was issued to the petitioner stating that a complaint has been received from respondent No.4 regarding encroachment of road situated at H.No.6_7Sl12lp, Sree Venkateshwara Cololry*Under High Tension Lane, which connects to 2 Classic Colony, Survey No 1 15' Neknampur Village' Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District, and the petitioner was directed to explain as to why the encroachment made by him shall not be removed' altered or pull down and he was called upon to submit reply within seven days' The petitioner has submitted reply dated 24'12'2024 to the show cause notice.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.2 is interfering with his possession and trying to provide access to the residents of respondent No 4 Colony without following due process of law and without considering his explanation to the show cause notice'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and if a portion of it is acquired for road, the petitioner has to be paid compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act' 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). lt is submitted that the photographs (Ex'P10) filed at page Nos.48 to 50 of the material papers of the writ petition show that the road is newly formed and it was not in existence since beginning on the request of respondent No'4' new road is being earmarked' .,

5. According to learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, the photographs under Ex.p10 clearly show High Tension Tower erected on the land earmarked for road.

6. The statement is seriously disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner contending that merely because there is a High Tension Tower on the road, it cannot be presumed that there is a road in existence. The road work is being done now, which is clearly evident from the photographs. t r ,

7. However, without entering into the merits of the case, as show cause notice dated 21 -12.2024 is issued and the petitioner has arready submitted reply thereto, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to conclude enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice dated 21 .12.2024 and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is completed, status quo,obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the subject property. It is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.06.2025, notice was taken out to respondent No.4, but it was returned. However, as this order is not passed on merits, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. At the time of enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice, respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.4 ,t ,..::. 4 and other interested persons' The petitioner is granted liberty to submit additional documents and explanation to the show cause notice' No order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous aPPlications' if anY, Pending in this writ Petition stand closed' 1 ,/TRUE COPYII AS,,,ii,fJAS:ss[ SEC N OFFICER SA GJP ) HIGH COURT DATED:24tO612025 i I : : I i I I 'I I l I ORDER WP.No.1 5434 o12025 rl1 a .:l ol' Y ,. \ C,r' l 26 ilfr ffi "\) .'.: :ir j/ DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.