The 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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly writ in the nature of mandarnus directing the respondents to forebear from taking possession of the property land bearing Plot No.592, H. No.8-2-6361db114 & 25 & 8-2-686/db/14 & 2511 , Road No. I2, Banjara Hills totally admeasuring 1075.2 sq yards. put of total extent of Ac.3.17 Guntas in S.No.129/49/D1 . situated at Road No.12. alter GOPAL PLYWOOD owners residence. Banjara Hills. Hyderabad without taking recourse to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. 20'13 Act or the provision of the GHMC Act more particulady Section 145 and 146 of the Act in so far as the Petitioner is concerned lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of dispossession of Petitioners from the :'operty land bearing Plot No.592, H. No. B-2-6361db114' & 25 & 8-2-6$Gldbl14 l',2511 , Road No. 12, Banjara Hills totally admeasuring 1075.2 sq yards. put of tct rl extent of Ac.3. I 7 Guntas in S.No.129 4) Dl. situated at Road No.12. after GOPAL PLYWOOD owners residence. Banjara Hills. Hyderabad, in the layout pr: rding disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DIVYA RAI SOHNI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN Ll' IBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMI\ f, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30283 of 2O?5 ORDER: (ORAL) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject matter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of 2025 dated25.09.2025 and the same is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

2. Recording the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.29446 and 29448 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ^q'r';,5fX^H#L?JYAXX 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 rhe p ri ncipa r secretarv, M DePartment' Secretartat tffi'lf i, jggi::T1t!:1"3:fl"yfitil,.DeveroPment o'o M u n ici par co rpo ratio n' H avi ns its ' I[e".",l TII=-1nT *.8:::'fi ;o:[oo"i8 3. One CC to SRI DIVYA RAI SOHNI' Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR' SC FOR GHMC q Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV 'High -' Telangana. [OUTI Court for the State of

6. Two CD Copies (Along with copy of a W.P. Nos. 29446 and 29448 of 2025 dt:2549-2025) PVL TKS * HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 t, 1lt * 2 C '[8 2026 z7 ..9 * ", rcH ORDER WP.No.30283 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r "1)* f! HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29r145 and,Z9MB 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 were requested to give consent letter under Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act') and hand over part of their property in Plot No.1056/l and Plot No.1355-E, respectively, situated at Road No.45, -Iubilee Hills, Hyderabad, affected in the proposed road widening.

3. Heard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Midde Arun 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

5. The petitioner is the owner of the Plot No.lO5(r,t. Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same I om the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society under regis ered sale deed dated 10.09.1991. The petitioner constructed house about two (2) decades ago in 2005 by obtaining building permissior nnd since then, she had been residing in the subject property. It is stab,d that in 2017, notice under Section 146 of the GHMC Act dated 18.12. 017 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter zr d handover the part of the subject property for the purpose ofwidening tl e existing Road No.45 i.e. from 80 feet to 120 feet. Aggrieved by the sarr e, the petitioner tlled W.P. No.28539 of 2018 challenging the said notict: and order dated t3.08.2018 was passed directing the respondent authoriti :s to follow due process of law. Subsequently, the petitioner receive I notice under Section l5(1) of the Act 2013 read with Rule 2l of the r rles made there under dated 27.09.2019 from the Special Deputy (lollector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad, to which she submittec her objections. 1'hereafter, no steps were taken by the respondent authorities and proceedings were rescinded by virtue of provisions unr't r Section l9(7) of the Act 2013 since the time limit of twelve (12) mon hs had elapsed While so, the petitioner received another notice under I ection l5(l) of o J the Act,2013 read with Rule 21 dated 01.09.2025 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, which was served on the petitioner on 12.09.2025.

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the offrcials of GHMC visited the house of the petitioner and demanded her to produce ownership documents, link documents, building permission etc., failing which the structures existing on the road affection portion wilt 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 is illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles ofnatural justice.

7. Learned 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 15(l) of the Act2013, 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. 4

8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted tt tt the impugned letter dated 20.09 .2025 was issued to the petitioner requ,) ting her to give consent letter and handover the part of the subject p:operty for the purpose of road widening. The petitioner was informed .l at she can avail the benefit of TDR (Transferable Development fughts) ir stead of money compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. L,ramed Standing Counsel submitted that the subject property of the p,: itioner will be acquired by following due process of law.

9. The record discloses that the notice under Section I 5(l) ofthe Act, 20 t 3 dated 0l .09.2025 was issued to the petitioner where i r her name was shown lrer at Sl.No.l2 in respect of the subject proper y bearing plot No.l056/t admeasuring 165.98 square yards. It appt:r rs preliminary notification was issued under Section ll (l) of the Act, i 013 (details ot which are not available) for acquisition of the subje,: properly and thereafier notice under section I5(l) of the Act, 20 I3 was issued. Section 146 of the GHMC Act empowers the Commissic rer, GHMC to acquire any immovable property by agreement on such terms at such rates or prices as approved by the Standing Committee rf the GHMC. Section t47 deals with the procedure when immovable r .operty cannot o 5 be acquired under Section 146 of the GHMC Act. Thus, when agreement between the property owner and GHMC cannot be entered into for 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 resort to Section 147 of the GHMC Act for'acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act 2013.

10. In the instant case, the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and Section l5(l) notice dated 01.09.2025 has been issued to the petitioner. It is also bome out of the record, on the earlier two occasions i.e.2017 and2025, the petitioner was not willing to give consent under Section 146 of the GHMC Act for handing over possession of the subject property. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is contesting the instant land acquisition proceedings and Section I5(l) 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 ofher land flor the purpose of road widening. Thus, having set the land acquisition process 6 in motion, the respondent authorities do not have any ir1 thority to issue the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025. However, it ma'z noted that even due to the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings the respondent authorities are always at liberty to negotiate with th < petitioner and request her to accept the compensation in terms of the I DR. Instead of doing so, the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is issued r lore so, without reference to the land acquisition proceedings and notice ; under Section l5(1) of the Act,20 13. Further, surprisingly, allegatior is made in the impugned letter that the petitioner will be treated as er croacher of the public road. There is no material available with the respondent authorities nor is it their case that the petitioner has encro ched the pubtic road. In view ol the same, the impugned letter is arbitrar r, unsustainable and tiable to be sct aside.

12. tn the light ol the above discussion, these wr t petitions are allowed. The irnpugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is t,t reby set aside This order, however, shall not come in the way ol the respondent authorities in going ahead with the land acquisition tr roceedings and acquire the subject propefty of the petitioners by passing Lward undcr the provisions of Act, 2013 or by entering into negot i tions with the n 7 petitioners requesting them to accept the compensation in terms of the TDR instead of mofley 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 RRK B. VIJAYSEN REDDY,I