High Court · 2025

petition under A(igle 226 qf the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may -be oleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the mare of Writ fifr4unArrr. (a) By declaring the entire action alike respondents, particularly the ,.iio" "t tne' iespondent fuos.3 and 4 laying the 46 feet road into the Ittitgl"si6or." owned by me and by demolishing-the front side including 3 feet of the existing buitding in Block No, 4-!1 (old number) and new shqp ,irii r.r... +-f s 4.16 and aii ot veouta lvittage)' Gopalpet (Mandal), wanaparthy District, wrthout acquiring the said land and without paying companion and even without follorying the due procedurq contemplated under Righ! Fair Qompensatiop ,nJ frunrp"r"n"cy in fa1rd Acquisiiign, Rehabilrtation and Reoettlement Act, 2013 ir.ro solzoizl as illegal, arbitraiy, colourable exercise of power, vindictive attitude' oi nitural justice to ihat of relevant pgovisioh of law' |rlri"ill,t'! "t iO) nnO conEequenily to direct the respondents not to interfere/demolish the old housg No.4 91 and new l,iirii.g shops numbeis 4-{5, 4-1G and 4-17 of Yedula viilage, Gopalpet (Mandal), Wanapat-1hy stair casg situated in 'including -principles _ €'Wr* .y;*q'.r, ... district' withor-rt dt r; p166g6gre and without rnitiating acquisrti,)n proceedings and without paying corrpensation in terms otnct SOl20l j IANO:1O F 2021 Petition und,:, Section.l:i Cpg praying that in the circrrmstanaes stated in the affidavit firec in s uoport of tne petitr:o-n,-trne"Higi'cor.t ma./ )e preased to direct the respondents. 1 .l tr nroceed with the l;yi;g ";i ,oad or any <,ther werk in the existing shops cov,,red area i.e., ota rrouse-t t-o.'a-6't ano new nunrbers 4-15,4- 16 and 4-17 of '/edr ta viila.g_e, C9p"fp9i lfvfrnaai;' Wgnapartlry drstrict, without following the due :-'r'ocedure contemprated ,nJ"i nrght Fair 3c mpensalion and Trpnsparency in li:rnd Acqujsition, i"frrOifii"t,i* and resetller.lent Aci, 201e (Ng 3012013) yuithc ur paying compqnse.tioi', Cqunset for the peririoner: SRt. SAIITHApUR SATYANARAYAN,q RAO pqunsql for the Respondent Nosl&3: cp FeR ROADS BUItDtNGS Cgunsel for the Respondent No.2; Gp FOR REVENUE Counsef for the Re:ipondent NO.4: qRI KALYAN RAO SC FOR Gp The Court made th€ ';-''"" ' tbllowing: ORDER I I i I THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 30,441 of 2O2l ORDER: llezrrd learncd counsel for the petitioncr' learned (]overnmenl Pleadcr for Roads & Buildings appearing for respondenl Nos'1 & 3' learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2. Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No 4' and peruscd the record. 'lhc case ol the petit'ioner, in brief, is that she is the owner of 2. exisfing building bc.rring Llousc No 4-9 1(ol<1)' Nos 4 15' 4 16' 4-17 (neu,) ol Yedlrla Viliage, Gopaipel Mandal, Wanaparthy District' having acquired the same on 22'05'1987 for valid considcration; that upon purchasing the same, said property having mutated on to her nzrmc and being assesscd to property tax since then'

3. Pctilioncr contcnds that the 3'd and 4th respondents' in the rramc ol giving effcct lo thc Ci.O'Rt No 13O, Tlt & B (R II) DcpL d:.27,11]2o14' u.hcre by aclministrativc sanction rlrdcrs u,ere issued for u,rdening srngle roacls to double lane roads in all Assembly constituencies, including the road from Nagarkurnool to Gopalpet (via) Revally from k.m. OIO to 36lA in Mahaboobnagar District' have highhandedly Lrespassed into her property on the early hours of ' 2

22.17.)tt ):/ i :I'rd dcmolishecl ttrc steps on thc t.( ltt :;tclc of Lhc pe tiLiorer . lrolrse/mulg cs including 3 fect sta:r c rse. rvithorr :rccluiring rh,, srLid land and rvitl,rout paying an5 corn tc rsation or by loilorvit-t51 clu r: procedure contcmplated undcr ti.r,: R ight to F.air Compensalicn :rnd Transparency in Land Acqursitic,n. F ehal.li.litation and Rcset ir::nent Act, 2O 13 (lor short ,the Act, 2O t.l ), ",,,hicl-r action of Lhe rcsp,:rrr l.rlts it is contencled as highly illeg:rl arrr: a .bitrary.

4. Pr-':i1r.,,1 -r hrrthcr contcnds that il the propert\ ( l-the pctitioncr is requircrci L,r ttr-rbLc pllrposes, the rcspondcr-r Ls -a.l lt( rilres oure a du t1, 16 n t.ii i, acquisition proceedings by determinrrrg and paying compensa tior ancl only thereafter can take up th(. ti.c rk of laying road b1' dcmo ishing thc petitioner,s property.

5. Petilir.r. . furlhr:r r:ontcnds that the 3.rt and .11, respondenls, ir ithoul it lo,. nq thc cluc- process of lari, at Lhc ir srancc and pressurc .f l,r 'it I Sarpa,ch. ha'e resorted to the aforr_s :ri,1 illcgal ar.rd untruthorizcrl 'cr of demoritior-r of the stair casr: o1' t-lc petitioner,s house/mr,tlgier I :l-Lcl also Lhe front steps of the shops, r-rulgies on the sole gror:,d ol rl'i. petiLio'rer's husband is inimical t.J\\.-.rrc s ti-rem and that therc is l Lrccessit). to \\riden the existing roaci. 6 It rs, a.s, , r:ontendcd bv tl.re petitioncr that on ,iL<, 3.d and 4tr, ft'SDotldcl l: r:'.r,rrin- . .,,h .o lhc alorcsaid act o ,l-- ^r..-^^^ir r^ dcrto. ishing the 3 petitioner's house and steps without following due process of law' it by submitting a had approached the District Collector represen l-ation; that inspite of the petitioner respondent and submitttng the representation, - yield any rcsult; and thus, the aforesaid acts of the respondents are in clear violalion of Article 3O0A ol thc Constitution of India depriving approaching the 2"4 the same did not thc petilioncr ol hcr ProPcrtY

7. Separatc counter afhdavits on behalf of respondent Nos 3 & 4 arc lLlcd- The 3'd respondcnt by the counter affidavit filed claims that the subject matter o[ thc road is under the control of R & B Department and that the Government had accorded administrative sanction uide G.O.Rt No' 13O, uncler Corenet Plan for the work of from Nagarkurnool to widcnr ng singlc lanc road Lo double Iane (iopalpe t uia licv.ril.v lrom km O lO Lo 3614 l)istrict, as thc road is busy lr'ith commercial vchicles and the public o[ nearby villagcs having requested for such widening' in old Mahaboobnagar

8. By lhe counter affidavit it is further contended by the 3'd respondent that the 4th respondent is the authorily in 1oca1 body area u,hich has to handover the required area for the 3'd respondent authori Ly [o comrne nce road rviden in g work' 1 (). j1.,, 1L ls r'. I ! countcr affidavit, thc 3.d responden r \ CnnCerl.terI u,ith Lhe demolitio n c 1 .. .- housc I rn _rlt.r.s on .22.I l 2024 as clarrncd in thrr r,r.r_rt yrc r.iti95 ra I clzLirned that t-l re ltetitioner,g

10. Bl r.hr :oLrnter alfidavit, the 3.,irespon<ient itas ,urther stated lhat the s,tic r_cspondenl *,ill contmence the roa. * td,:, ng work only after the, .:l f ir i csilonclent hancling over the vacan t anc c ear site to R & B Depzrr-lrrr: nr, and in the meantime, the said R i: Il authorities arc cxecllijnq lhr: p6214 rvidening u_ork on the availablc r:xisting R & B road bou.tcar- . o;tl\,.. 1 1. The .l ., Engineerinr sanction zr: urit avetnto: r s of the 3'r : sltondent, b_,r. the counter affidavrl, u,lrt c ietr-ving the c,rntencled that thc subjcct road is ur:drr thc control rt_'r., pon dr:tr L, which is covered b_r, the acirrinrstrative c,',n ,-cl uicle G.O.Rt.No.l30, based on the 1;_c 1rc sals ol.the irr r.)lrictlR&B) for 260 numbcr of works 12. By thc i:,:r t.t1r:r affidavit thc :lrh rssp6ltde,t denre cl tl at on the earl.y hours c:t. rl. I l.2O2l, the 3,.r and 4th rcsponclenls rnd their employees tr_-sl)i,s stng into thc sulrject property and detn.,li ;hit_rg the lrrE' l.o dcmorieh tltr: slaircase sleps uf tlt, r r, . ,r.rriqi,.s.rntl als,, rrring r,,,lq_1 area o1-thc sirrtr . riigies. , .) By the counter affidavit, the 4rh respondent contended that the t3 construction of mulgies by the petittoner 1s an encroachment on the the alleged sale deed, under which the exrsting road and even petitioner claims to have purchased the subjcct property, does not refcr to any cxtenl of area of houst:

14. By the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent' it is further contende<l that thc 4th respondent having lcarnt that the villagers i-e., posscssors of land on both sides of the subjcct road having come to an unclcrstanding to widen thc road' since the existing road is very narrow and not enough to cater to the needs of Lhe public and accorclingly made a marking with measurement of 33 feet from centre o[ thc road to ascertain the area which wouid be aflected bv thc road wide ning work

15. By Lhe countcr aihdavit, it is contendccl that the 4fr respondent has no role in thc alleged road widening work and that the staff of the 4th respondent ne\,er we nt to the subject house/ mulgies and demolishedthestepsofthemulgics,asclaimcdbythepetitioner. 16; On behall of [he 4'r' respondcnt, it is also contended that it is Lhe 3'd rcspondcnt, r','ho has lo mainLain thc roads and the 3'd respondent clid not addrcss any lcltcr asking for road widening and it 6 appearsi thr t thc 3.,1 respondent executecl the uror.k or I thc, available and exi:srirrr R & B road boundar y* onll.. 17. 'Iitr 4 , r.-spondcnL, by stating as abovc, anc r ls I rr:serving its libert' rt Iilr a<.lcliLional counter at a latcr st.rge, so rrlht lor dismissal of the u ri, .r I i1ion. 18 I ltair: lrrlien notc of lhc rcspcctivc submissior s :nr<Jc

19. A p,:r,-,::rl of the counter alfidavits liicd b1. rhe 3..r and 4ft rcsponcir:rtr,s ;.,oulcl clearll, indicatc that the s:ud L.,,s1,6tlflents are try.ing trr bl:r L: onc_another claiming themselves Lo i:c .gnorant and lnnocen t

20. Whik. t;r: 3,,1 respondent is claiming o[ ll r] trl<:rt:rking roacl r''idening iltth- I It rl-re avarlablc existing It & IJ ro:.r br L .c ar_r ,rd trrc sralf of th: sa iri rcspondent not invorving in the crcrr rli ion of stair c.ts| of rh mulgies, on the othcr h:Lnd, lhe 4th <:l r nts that it is the responsibility of rl e R & B 1-.r rnallLain the roads and thc-v hav,] 11s,1 re ccivecl any he .j,,1 respor.rclent u,ith rcgard Lo thc u icier ing of the responder t .,., iriop6,;-.5 dcpartmen L letter lrorrt road. 2l' NoL\iLhst rrrdir-rg Lhe lact ol.[hc 3,a and 4rrrr.csl.rortrlr_,rLts equallS, feign ignorernr:c rr thcir staff trespassing into the pclr[ion-.r,s propertv /; 7 and dcmolishing the staircase of mulgies' thc fact remail-rs that the stair case of the petitioner's mulgies having been demolished on 2t.11.2021

22. Though the 4th rt:spond<rnt br' [he counler aflidavit filed denied of its statf being involved in thc demolition ol staircase of the pclitioner's mulgies or the steps of the mulgies' however' would contendthatithasCome[otheknowledgeofthe4hrespondentof Lhe villagers i.e., thc posscssors of rcspcctive property on both sides of the subject road having come lo an understanding to widen the road, as the same is very narrow and not enough to cater the needs of the public, it is to bc noted that u'idening o[ a public road cannot be undcrtaken by individuals on their ou'n unless they voluntarily come up and surrcndcr the requircd area in favour of the 3'd or 4h respondents, for them to undertakc such works-

23. Admittedly, the petitioner's properLy is adjacent to the subject road,who,asu'ouldbecvident,didnotconsenlforthesocalled understanding, ii any, to wiclen the road by possessors of the respective properties on both sides of the road for the 4th respondent lo claim of the respectivc posscssors on both sicles of the road having t-aken up the saic-l n'ork nor the said act can be attributed lo act of god. S

24. It is irlso curior-rs to knou. that Lhe 4i], r--sPondent rvhile lt 1s no u.a1,- involved in the road u idening r,vork, claiminrl tl ;:t horrgeve r, ht : stated Lhat the construction of sr_rb.j,,i r I4ulgies by the p('t1Lr.)r'L,ti ts ln encroachmct'rl on thr: cxisting rit:tcj

2. Il Lht: ;aid construction is ar-i cncroar:hrlre r I orr titc existing road, Lhc.1 rcspondent, rn,ho is bestowed u,ith r.ltr clutl- to ensure that no :.;ur - illcgal construction comes up, ougi.t t I have taken action u'hen the alleged construction was being marlL. '2b. FrLr.-hr r. assuming that thc 4th rcspondent. rr lio clatms to be rvorking. ,:,11 ., lrom 16.Oq.2O2O, at lcast olt jt,r:,::ng the said constrll:[]on lo bc an encroachmcnt of the roa(l, ot.rqitl o h:rve taken sleps b.,, ss Ling notice to the petitior-rer calling 1c.r l exltlanation ancL taki t: i rrther action thcreon, in [crms of thc p:r1, rsicrts of Lhc Act, 20I 3 rcLnrttedly, no such action has lt.c.r L: <r n br. thc 4e rcsponrl,:nL t jl clerte.

27. Thus, . 1- e explanation, no\\, given by the .l1rr rr::,;,rc ndcnt of the s:ric1 c<trLstrrr't ion to be an encroachmenL on to hc: :oad, rn the cor-rsidcr-.:cl r r ''r o[ this (]ourt is onl-r' invcntcd ftrr tl.rc i r.lrposc or firing oI coulttaf :rl r:llrvit in thc pre_-scr)l writ Petiliot t(, r...LL,rsr: preluclicc ag:rinst tl-r( l)( lrtjoltcr in the mincl of this Court. - -:.":r.. ::. :?.:X:l:.?' _.e ','1. *. -._ _*..{ \ I

28. Since, both l-he 3'd and 4th rcspondents have claimed that the aforesaicl demolition of steps ol the petitioner's property is not undertakcn bY the m, Lhis Court is of thc vier't' that the petitioner should be granted liberty to lodgc a compl:rint against the aforesaid illegal action u'ilh the concerned police for thcm to investigate and lake necessary action against the person rcsponsible for such action'

29. Further, since, thc 3'd respondent claims of it undertaking road wiclening work on available existing R & B road boundary only, n.hiLc the 4Lt1 rcsponclent cl:rims of iL not receiving any communication/ lcr tcr from the lrrl 165p1-116[snt with regard to the proposed widening of thc road, this Court is of the further view thal either of the respondents in the evcnt of intending lo take steps for widening the road, are rcquirccl lo follorv due process of law as prcscribcd undcr Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act' 2013' for acquiring the land/properLy requirecl for u'idcning of the road and paying compensation or by issuing noticc, in the cvcnt of any alleged cncroachment made on the R & Il road and taking action' by following due Process o[ lau''

30. Till such lime the rcspondenls initiate action as detailed herein abovc, this court is of thc view that the rcspon -*' authorlties are I I 10 i to be rc'sl*r 'lccl lrom interfering u,ith thc pctitio...,r; h. usr__/ rnulgies bezrring Ir,o . !) I (old), Nos.4 15, 4,16, 4- 17 (tir u,) rt y rclula Viilagc, Gopallter, itlr ndal, Wanaparthl. District, q,hjch is srrl;j:ct mattcr of the prcsr:trt r rlt'it Petition.

31. Sul:ic, 1o the above directions, thc Wrll petitir: i; cli-sposecl of Noordct'ast)Lrosls

32. C o L'rscr -rr:nt1."., misccllaneous petrtlons, il .1r.l\ l cnclir.rg sJtall sta nd cI rs rr l. //TRUE COPY// ( DE PI,ITY REGI ID/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principa Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings; [)elrartment Secretarii?t lYderabad.

2. The Distr cl .;lllector, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District 3. The Executi'rer Engineer' Roads and Buildings Departmert V/anaparthy' WanapafihY :)istrict.

4. The Panc.havath Secretary, Gramapanchayath, Yedula iVillage)' Gopalpet (tvlandar) \\:eraParthY District. 5 One CC to :iRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6, ONE CCI tO []fl| KALYAN RAO SC FOR GP [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to (iP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 'High Courl f ;r'he State of Telangar a. ()UTl B'TwoCCSto(]PforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTeanganaat Hyderabad i{)UTl Two CD lo ries (+- I KKS BS i I I t I I 1 I I i r '; i i i HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.30441 ot 2021 ,. z-4 - ,'. ,.\, //d' /, '. i,': sI \--. \.,." 'j: ":: -:T.\r-I: =: ...\ :.\, ,.i \ \. iii\, $6 ./ DISPOS!NG T'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS k 6 .L \9 ? h i I i I ; I