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 in nature of writ of 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. 5R/RW/ACP/C 18tc1Mctzo25 dated 2010912025 issued by Respondent No.3 and restrain the respondents from depriving the petitioner of his possession and enjoyment of any part of his property in Plot No.1 358, situated at Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, without following the due procedure of acquisition established under Right to Fair compensation and rransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- Settlement Act, 2013. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 - - Ei._r . r_9ir I Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot. rt may, be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to impr.rgned Letter No. 5R/RW/ACP/cl 8/GHMC/2025 dated 2o/09t2025 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 petition::r,s property in plot No.135B situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI M.ARUN KUMAll, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER EFF:."-/ -.._:.,r' I I i HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2945'1. of 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject matter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Courl in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of 2025 dated25.09.2025 and the same is not disputed by the leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC.

2. Recording aforesaid submission, the r.vrit petition is allowed in terms of the common order passed by this Couft in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of2025 dated 25.09.2025. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.NAGAMANI STANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secreta ry, IVunicipal Administratio Department, Secretari at Buildings, Hyderabad, Sta nd Urban Develo pment f Telangana

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lMunrcipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Town Planning Section, Circle-18, Jubilee Hills, Khairtabad, Hyderabab

4. One CC to SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRt M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHIvtC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR TMCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUIJ

7. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of common order dated 25.09.2025, in W.p.No.29946 and 29948 ot 20251 BSRYBSK N} _,___-_?-i---:1,rr3.?, HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 CC TODAY I ( ') 'J \ i:r., :\..\ s' s b -l {i, ORDER WP.No.29451 of 2025 i,L l, i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .J b ( * t/ HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29446 and29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAL) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order

2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned letter dated

20.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 whereby they rvere requested to give consent letter under Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short'GIIMC Act') and hand over part of their property in Plot No.1056/l and PIot No. 1355-8, respectively, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, affected in the proposed road widening.

3. Heard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Midde Amn Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material on record

4. The facts in W.P. No.29446 of 2025, being the lead case, are set out as under: 2 \_. - ":mq - s&.. \, \. -I

5. The petitioner is the ou,ner of the Plot No.1056/1, R,tad No.45, Jubilee Hills, t{yderabad, having purchased the same lirrm the Jubilec Hills Coop:rative I Iouse Building Society undcr reg istcred sale deed dated I0.0() I99l The petitioner consrructed housr abor_rt tu,o (2) decades agr:l rn 2005 by obtaining building permission and since then, she had ber:n residing in the sub.ject property. It is st:rred that in 2017, notice under Section 146 of the GHMC Act dated 18.1.12017 w.as issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter tnrl handover the part olthe subject ploperty for the purpose olwidening thc ex,sting Road No.45 i.e. fi om 80 l'eet to 120 feet. Aggrieved by the se,rne, thj petitioner fited W.P. No.28539 of 2018 chatlenging the said notice and,rrder dared

13.08 2018 rvas passcd dirccting the respondcnt authoritics to lbllow riue process ol law. Subsequently, the petitioner recei,,,ed notice under Section l5(l) of the Act 2013 read with Rute 21 of the,rules made there under dated 21 .09.2019 from the Special Deputy Colle,:tor, Lancl Acquisition, (iHMC, Hyderabad, to which she submitt.:d her objections. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the respondent auth,trities and proceedings rvere rescinded by virtue of provisions unrler Section 19(7) of the Act 11013 since the time lirnit of twelve (12) mc,r.rths hrd elapsed. While so, the petitioner received another notice under Section l5(1) ol I 3 the Act,20[3 read with Rule 21 dated 01.09.2025 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, which was served on the peti tioner on 12.09.2025

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the officials of GHMC visited the house of the petitioner and demanded her to produce ownership documents, link documents, building pemrission etc., failing which the structurcs existing on the road aft-ection portion will be treated as encroachments 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 1S illega[, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the claim of the respondent authorities is self-contradictory. Having initiated the land acquisition proceedings and having issued notice under Section I 5( 1) of the Act 2013, the impugned notice, which is a threatening tactic, was issued to the petitioner pressurizing her to surrender the road affected area of her property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. t \-r"!qi*sryF& f r:,!.2 I \, -- 4

8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted rliat the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 rvas issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letler and handover thc parl of the subject propelty frrr the purpose of'road rvidening. The petrtroner was informed that she can avail the be nelit of TDR (Transferable Development Rights) instea(l of money cornpensation urrder the pror.isions of the Act, 2013. l.eanied Standing Counsel submitted that the sub.ject property of the l.,ctitior:er will be acquired by tbllorving due process of law.

9. The record discloses that the notice under Sectior I5(l ) of the Act, 201 3 dated t)1 .09.2025 was issued to the petitioner wher.cin hcr name was shown her at Sl.No.l2 in respect of the subject prop3rty hearing ptot No. 1056/l admeasuring 165.98 square yards. It aplrears pr.elinrinary notillcation u.as issued under Section l1 (l) of the Acr, 2013 (details of which are not available) lor acquisition of the subj:ct pr,:perty and thereafter notice under Section l5( I ) of the Act, lt01 3 i.,as issued. Section 146 of the GHMC Act empowers the Cornmis.;ioner, GHMC to acquire any immovable property by agreement on su:h tenns al such rates or pri,:es as approved by the Standing Committr:c of the GHMC. Section 147 deals with the procedure when immovabl.: property cannot ,:' 5 be acquired under Section 146 of the GHMC Act. Thus, when agreement between the property owner and GHMC cannot be entered into lor the reason the owner of the property does not give consent for acquisition of his/her property, the next step to be taken by the GHMC is to resoft to Section 147 of the GHMC Act for acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act 2013 t0. In the instant case, the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and Section l5(1) notice dated 01.09.2025 has been issued to the petitioner. It is also borne out of the record, on the earlier two occasions r.e 2017 and 2025, the petitioner was not witting to give consent under Section 146 of the CHMC Act for handing over possession of the subject property. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is contesting the instant Iand acquisition proceedings and Section l5(1) enquiry is pending. ll. In the opinion of this Court, for obtaining consent from the petitioner for acquiring part of the subject property, Section 146 of the GHMC Act is to be followed. It is apparent on the face of the record that consent was not given by the petitioner for acquisition of her land for the purpose of road widening. Thus, having set the land acquisition process '=..-:*@ \ 6 in motion, the respondent authorities do not have any rrutholty to issue the impugncd lL-tter dated 20.09.2025. Horvever, it mai'noterl that even due to the prendcncy of the land acquisition proceedingrs, the respondent authorities are always at liberty to negotiate with rire perjtioner and request her to accept the compensation in terms ol the 'l'DR. Instead of doing so, the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is issuec more so, without reference to the land acquisition proceedings and notir;cs under Scction l5(l) ol tlxr Act. 2013. Further', surprisingly, allegatirrn is nrade in the impugned l3tter that the petitioner rvill be treated as .rncroa,:her of the public road. There is no material availabte witlr the respondent authorities nor is it their case that the petitioner has encr oacherl the public road. In vit:lr of the same, the irnpugned tettcr is arbitr-.rry, unsustainable and liable to be sct aside.

12. ln the light of the abovc discussion, these r,rit pttitions are allowed. -['he impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is hereby set aside. This order, hou,ever, shall not come in the r,"'ay c,l- the respondent authorities in going ahead with the land acquisition proceedings and acquire the subject propefty of the petitioners by passinr: award under the provisions of Act, 2013 or by entering into nego,iations with the :ffi,- 7 petitioners requesting them to accept the compensation in terms of the 'IDR instead of money compensation by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, stand closed September 25,2025 RIIK B. VIJAYSEN REDDY,I