C.Vijaya Lakshmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petitron Under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to stay impugned Letter No. 131/RW/ACP/C18lGHl\AC12025 dated 20-09-2025 issued by Respondent No.3 and direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps to demolish or dispossess the petitioner from any part of the petitioner':; property in Plot No. 1056/l situated at Road No 45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.V.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN /\ND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC W.P.NO: 29448 OF 2025 Between: S.Uma Devi, W/o. S. Venkateswara Rao, aged 59 years, Oc,:; Business, Fl/o. Plot No.1355-E Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatr,rbad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 3, The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corooration Town Planning Section, Circle-18, Jubilee Hills, Khairtabad, l-lyderabad. Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnciia 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 in nature of writ of .....RESPONDENTS I L w mandamus declaring the actions of respondents as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Letter No. SL/RW/ACP/C1B/GHMC/2025 dated 20-09-2025 issued by Respondent No.3 and restrain the respondents from depriving the petitioner of her possession and enjoyment of any part of her property in Plot No.'1 355-E, situated at Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, without following the due procedure of acquisition established under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- Settlement Act, 20'1 3. I.A.NO:I OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to impugned Letter No. SL/RW, ACP C18 GHMC|ZO25 dated 20-09-2025 issued by Respondent No.3 and direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps to demolish or dispossess the petitioner from any part of the petitioner's property in Plot No.1355-E situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.V.NARASIMHAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 :GP FOR MCPLADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following COMMON ORDER .*- . ". . -/.,' l, (-\ HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEI\] REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29tl45 and,294J.8 C'tF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAL) Since tl-re issue involved in both these writ petitit,ns is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impr rgned letter dated

20.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 whereby they ,,vere requested to givc consenr lctter undcr Section 146 of the Clcaler Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'GHMC Ar:t') and hand over part of their properly in Plot No.l056ll and, Plot No.13i,.5-11, respectively, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, affected in the proposed road widening.

3. Heard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, leamed counsel f<rl the petitioners; Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for t.lHMCl, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material or record

4. The facts in W.P. No.29446 of 2025, being the lead case, are set out as under: 1,}1 2

5. The petitioner is the owner of the Plot No.l056/I, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society under registered sale deed dated 10.09. I 991 . The petitioner constructed house about two (2) decades ago in 2005 by obtaining building permission and since then, she had been residing in the subject property. It is stated that in 2017 , notice under Section 146 of the GHMC Act dated 18.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter and handover the part of the subject property for the purpose of widening the existing Road No.45 i.e. from 80 feet to 120 feet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.28539 of 2018 challenging the said notice and order dated

13.08.2018 was passed directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law. Subsequently, the petitioner received notice under Section 15(l)of the Act 2Ol3 read withRule 2l of the rules made there under dated 27 .09.2019 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad, to which she submitted her objections. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the respondent authorities and proceedings were rescinded by virtue of provisions under Section 19(7) of the Act 2013 since ttre timelriit of twelve (12) months had elapsed. While so, the petitioner received airother notice under Section I 5( I ) of t *n".-1"./ ,/ 'J.' J the Act,20l.] read with Rule 21 dated 01.09.2025 liorn the Speciat Deputy Collector, [.and Acquisition, GHMC, which uas served on the petitioner on 12.09.2025.

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the officials of (il-IlvIC visited the house of the petitioner and demanded her to prr',duce ownership documents, linli documents, building permission etc., tiling which the structures existing on the road aflection portion will be treated as encroachmenl.s upon the public road. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in threatening the petitioner to demolish her house in the subject property ls illegal, without jurisdiction and ln violation of principles ofnatural justice.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submiltcd that the claim of the respondent authorities is self-contradictory. He ving initiated the land acquisition proceedings and having issued notice under Section 15(l) of the r\ct 2013, the impugned notice, which is a .hreatening tactic, was issued to the petitioner pressurizing her to strrrender the road affected area of her property. Aggrieved by the samer, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. !rH': 4

8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter and handover the part of the subject property for the purpose of road widening. The petitioner was informed that she can avail the benefit of TDR (Transferable Development Rights) instead of money compensation under the provisions of the Act, 201 3. Leamed Standing Counsel submitted that the subject property of the petitioner will be acquired by following due process of law.

9. The record discloses that the notice under Section 15(l) of the Act, 201 3 dated 0l .09 .2025 was issued to the petitioner wherein her name was shown her at Sl.No.l2 in respect of the subject propefty bearing Plot No. 1056/I admeasuring 165.98 square yards. It appears preliminary notification was issued under Section l1 (1) of the Act, 2013 (details of which are not available) for acquisition of the subject property and thereafter notice under Section l5(1) of the Act, 2013 was issued. Section 146 of the GHMC Act empowers the Commissioner, GHMC to acquire any immovable property by agreement on such terms at such rates or prices as approved by the Standing Committee of the GHMC. Section 147 deals with the procedure when immovable property cannot 5 be acquired under Section 146 of the GHMC Act. Thus. when agreement between the property owner and GHMC cannot be enrercd into fbr the reason the ou,ner ol the property does not give consent tbr acquisition of his/her propertv, the next step to be taken by the GHl,{Cl is to resort to Section 147 ol the GHMC Act fbr acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act 20 1 3 .

10. In the instant case, the land acquisition proce(idirtgs have been initiated and Section I 5( I ) notice dated 0 I .09.2025 has treen issued to the petitioner. It is also bome out of the record, on the earlier two occasions i.e. 2017 and 2025, the petitioner was not witling to give consent under Section 146 of the GHMC Act for handing over possesrion ol-the subject property. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner also contended that the petitioner IS contesting the instant land acquisition proceedings and Section 15(1 )enquiry is pending. I I . In the opinion of this Court, for obtaining ,lonsent from the petitioner for: acquiring part of the subject property, liection 146 of the GHMC Act is to be followed. It is apparent on the facc of the record that consent was not given by the petitioner for acquisition of her land for the purpose ofroad widening. Thus, having set the land acquisition process ,;:- ,t ! 6 in motion, the respondent authorities do not have any authority to issue the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025. However, it may noted that even due to the pendency ol the land acquisition proceedings, the respondent authorities are always at liberty to negotiate with the petitioner and request her to accept the compensation in terms of the TDR. Instead of doing so, the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is issued more so, without reference to the land acquisition proceedings and notices under Section 15(l) of the Act, 2013. Further, surprisingly, allegation is made in the impugned letter that the petitioner witl be treated as encroacher of the public road. There is no material available with the respondent authorities nor is it their case that the petitioner has encroached the public road. In view of the same, the impugned letter is arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to be set aside

12. In the light of the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is hereby set aside. This order, however, shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities in going ahead with the land acquisition proceedings and acquire the subject properly of the petitioners by passing award under the provisions of Act, 201 3 or by entering into negotiations with the 7 petitioners requesting them to accept the compensation in terms of the TDR instead of money compensation by following dr-.e process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, rl any, pending in these writ petitions, stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.M.NAGAMANI TANT REGISTRAR :\ \SEc.TIoN OFFICER [.Jrban Development $ To

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administratio Dep artment Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana zrt Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corp roration, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municil:al Corporation Town Planning Section, Circle-18, Jubilee Hills, Khairtabad, llyderqbad'_ 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIMN AND URBAN DEVI:LOPIVENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI C.V.NARASIIMHAIVI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUIVIAR, SC FOR GHIvlil), Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA/BSK p .{.'l i I l I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.29446 AND 29448 of 2025 ,i;':l i t|) lr-J :L v \n I i.t- *-, .\ _1.- .l ]:1 ,l -tS i:a--' CO s. -i. i' )rr,'."i'l ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. \o J (, I 'i:I