Sravika Vaddavalli v. '1 . The State of Telangana

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 tn nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and violatrve of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside Notice No. 8142312024 dated 21 ;O812O25 issued by Respondent No.2 and restrain the Respondents from depriving the Petitioner of her possession and enjoyment of any part of her property in Plot No. 564 - A - 50- 1 11, situated in Sy. Nos 40311 of Shaikpet Village and Sy. No. 102/1. Hakimpet with an area of 1 '1 76 Sq. Yards or 983 Sq. Mts., Jubilee Hills. tlyderabad, without following the due procedure of acquisition established under Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- Settlement Act, 201 3 and pass such further orders in the lnterest of justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ay be pleased to direct the Respondents Authorities not to take any coercive st€ ps to demolish or dispossess the Petitioner from any part of the Petitioner's p()perty in Plot No. 1056/l situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. l.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to impugned Notice No. 8142312024 dated 2110812025 issued by the Respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following ORDER .7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS.IICE B. VT.IAYSEN REDDY TITIONN o.306 12 0F WRTT 202s PE ORDER: (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject mafter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.p. Nos.29446 and 29448 of 2025 dated 25 .09.2025 and, the same is not disputed by the reamed sranding Counsel for GHMC. 2. Recording aforesaid submission, the 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. \ To ,TRUE COPY' SD/. B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Urban Development

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Building. State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, 6th Floor, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad - 600063.

3. The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad [t4unicipal Corporation, CC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund. Hyderabad - 500063. 4. The lvlunicipal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, CF56 (Plus) 69F, Khairatabad Road, Taj Enclave, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [t/unicipal Corporation, Circle No. 18, Jubilee Hills, Khairatab ad Zone. Hyderabad, CF56 (plus) 69F, Khairatabad Road, Taj Enclave, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.

6. The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad [,4unicipal Corporation, lnward Section, CF56 (plus) 69F, Khairatabad Road, Taj Enclave, Khairatabad, Hvderabad. Telanoana - 500004

7. Two CCs kr GP F6R MCPL ADIVN AND URBAN DEVE-OP|\4ENT. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] B. One CC b SRI V.PREETI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC kr SRI G.IMADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate ,OPUC) 10 Two CD Copies (Note : Copy of the common order in WP.No.29446 and 29448 oI 2025 dated 25-9-2025 shall be annexed to this order) SA .t KSy- I HIGH COURT I I DATED:0911012025 ..1 ORDER WP.No.30612 ot 2025 ).\ (,( l-'z o ,.<\ ; 1 -,1 25 0[I 26 z)lso,r '.,'r \i,l) ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT I'ETITION Nos.29446 and29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAL) Since thc issuc involvcd in both thcsc rvrit pctitions is one anrl the same, they are being disposed of by this common order

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

20.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 whereby thcy u,crc rcqucsted to give consent letter under Section 146 of the Greater Ilyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (fbr short 'GHMC Act') and hand over part of their property in Plot No.l056/l and Plot No.li5-5-E, rcspectively, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hitts, Hyderabad, aftectcd in the proposed road wideni ng.

3. Ileard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, learned counsel lbr the l)etitioncrs; Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counscl Ibr GHMC. appearing Ibr respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material otr recorcl.

4. -Ihe facts in W.P. No.29446 of 2025, being thc lead casc, arc set out as under: .-r l

5. The petitioner is the owner of the Plot No.1056/I, Road No.45, Jubilcc Hills. Ilrtlcratrarl. having purchascd the saure lrom thc Jubilee [{ills Coopcratir c Housc Building Society under registered sale deed dated 10.09. i r)9 I . 'l'hc petitioner constructed housc about two (2) decades ago irr 1005 by obtaining building permission and since then, she had been rcsicling in thc subject property. [t is stirled that in 2017, noticc undcl Section l4(r of thc GHMC Act dated 18.12.2017 r.vas issued to thc petiliouer rccluesting hcr to give consent letter and handover the pafl ol the sr.rbject property lor the purpose of widening tlre existing l{oad No.-15 i.e. tionr fiO t'eet to 120 l'eet. Aggricved by the sane, the petitioner filed W.P. No.2li5l9 ol' 20 t8 challenging the said notice and order dated

13.08.20 ll{ u as passecl clirecting the resporrdent authonties to lbllow due proccss ol' lau. Subscquently, thc petitioner receir',:d notice undcr Section l5( 1 t ol thc r\ct 2013 read with Rule 2l of the rules nrade tliere unclcr datcd 27 09.20 l9 fl'onr the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. (il{MC. Hyderabad, to wliich sl.re subrnitted her objections. Thercafter, nt) stcps were taken by the respondent authorities and proceedings ."i,erc rescinded by virtuc of provisions untler Section l9(7) ol the Act f0 l-i since thc timc limit ol twelve ( l2) morrths had clapsed. While so. the petitioncr received another notice under Scction l5( l) of the Act,2013 read with Rule 2l datcd 01.09.2025 from the Spccial Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, which was servccl on the petitioner on 12.09.2025.

6. tt is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the of-ficials oIGHMC visited the house ol the petitioner and dcmanded her to produce orvncrship docunrcnts, link documents. building permission etc., faiiing u'hich thc strLrctures cxisting on the road af-fuction portion will bc trcated as encroachnrents upon the public road. It is contended that the action ol' the rcspondcnt authorities in thleatening the petitioner to cleniolish hc'r house in the subject property is illegal, without jurisdiction and Il) violation of principles of natural justice.

7. [-earned counsel l'or the petitioner further submitted that the clainr of thc rcspondent authorities is self-contradictory. Having initiated thc land acqLrisition proceedings and having issued notice under Section l5(l) ol-thc Act 2013, the impugned notice, which is a threatening tactic, was issucd to the petitioner pressurizing her to surrender the roatl aflected area ol her property. Aggrieved by the same, thc petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. ! I -_.. ; +

8. I-earne<l Sranding Counsel fbr GHMC submittcd lhat the intpugned letter dated 20 09.2025 was issued to rhe petitioner requesting her to give consent lettc| arrd handovcr the pal1 of the subject l)r'operty tbr the puryose ol rorrcl rvitlening. 'l'he petitioner rvas in{bnnetl that she can avail the benctlt ol TI)R (-l'ranslerable Developrnent Rights) instead of money contpensation urrrler the provisior-rs of the Act, 2013. L,eamed Standing Counsel subrrritted that thc subjcct property of thc petitioner wilt be acquired by li'llorvine duc proccss of law

9. l'he reconl discloses that the notice undcr Section l5(1) ol'ttre Act, 2013 dated 0l .09.2025 was issued to the petitioner wherein her name was shown lrer at S l.No. I 2 in resl.rcct of the sub.iect property bearing Plot No.l056/l atirueasuring I65.98 square yards. [t appears preliminary notification was issued under Section I I ( I ) of the Act, 201 3 (details of which are n()t available) fbr acquisitior.r of the subject properly and thereatier noticc r.uldcr Section I 5( I ) of the Act, 20 I 3 was issucd Section l4(r ,.rf the GI IMC Acl cnrporvers the Con.unissioner, GHI\4C to acquire any irnnrovable propelty by agreemcnt or.r sr ch tenns at such rates or priccs as approved by the Standing Cornntittee of tlie CI{MC. Scction 1,17 rlculs rvith the procedurc wltcr.r inrntovablc properly cannot -) be acquired under Section 146 olthe GIIMC Act. Thus, when agreen.rcnl between the property owner and GHMC cannot be entered into lbr thc reason thL- orvncr o{'the property does not give consent for acquisition of his/her properry, the next step to be taken by the GHMC is to resoft to Section 141 ol the GHMC Act for acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act 2013.

10. [n the instant case, the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and Section l5( I ) notice dated 01.09.2025 has been issued to thc petitioner. lt is also borne out ofthe record, on the earlier two occasions i.e. 2011 and 2025, the petitioner was not willing to give consent under Section 146 of the GHMC Act for handing over possession of the subject property. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that thc petitioner is contesting thc instant [and acquisition proceedings and Section l5( I ) enquiry is pending I l. [n the opinion o1' this Court, lor obtaining consent fi'om the petitioner for accluiring part ol the subject propefty, Section 146 of the GtIMC Act is to bc tbllorvcd. It is apparent on the lace of the record that consent was not given by the petitioner tbr acquisition ofher land for the pllrposc of road widening. l hus, having set the land acquisition pl'ocess 6 in motion, thc rcspondent authorities do not have any atrthority to issue the irnpugned lettcr dated 20.09.2025. Howevcr, it rnay noted that even due to the pcudency of the land acquisition ptoceedings the respondent authorities are always at liberty to negotiate with the petitioner and request her to accept the compensation in lerrns of the 'l DR. Instead of doing so, the irnpugncd lctter dated 20.09.2025 is issued more so, rvithout relerence to thc land accluisition proccedings and noticr.s under Section l5( I ) ol the .\ct. 201 3. [rurrher, surprisingly, allegatiorr is made in the impugned lettcr that the petitioner will be treated as encroacher of the public road. 'l here is no matcrial availablc rvith the respondent authorities nor is it their case that the petitioner has encrt ached the public road. In view ol'thc same, the impugncd lctter is arbitra,:y, unsustainable and liable to be sct aside.

12. In the liglrt ol- the abovc discussion, these w rit petitions are allowed. 1'lrc inrpugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is l-Lercby set aside. This order. horvevcr, shall not come in the rvay ol' the respondent authorities in eoing ahead with the land acquisition proceedings and acquire the subjcct propcrty of- the petitioncrs by passing award under the provisions o1 .,\ct, 2013 or by entering into neeotiations rvitli the 7 petitioncrs requcsting thenr to accept the compensation in tenns of the TDR instead of money compensation by follorving due process ol law. There shall be no orcler as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, il any, pending in these writ petitions, stand closed. September 25,2025 IiI.lK B. VIIAYSEN REDDY,I