✦ High Court of India · 10 Oct 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
10 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,906 words

Petition under Section l5'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to grant rnterim stay of dispossession of petitioners from the property i_e., House t bearing lVlunicipal No. B-2-682/B l2lA, currently admeasur ng 852 Sq. Yards situated at Road No.12. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in the la'r ,ut pending 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 Ut BAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMI R, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30757 of 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject matter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the cornmon order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.29446 and2944g of 2025 dated25.09.2025 and the same is not disputed by the leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC.

2. Recording the aforesaid subrnission, this writ petition is allowcd in terms of the common order passed by this Cou( in W.p. Nos.29446 ani 29448 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pend ing in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA L ISTANT AR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The PrinctP al Secretary, Municip al Administrati Department , Secretariat B uilding, The State of Tel a s n Urban DeveloPment a, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tt/unicipal Corporation' office at Tank Bund Road, HYderabad Having its

3. One CC to SRI DIVYA RAI SOHNI' Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR' SC FOR GHIVC 5,TwoCCstoGPFoRN4CPLADMN&URBANDEV,HighCourtfortheState of Telangana. [OUT] lr, 6. Two CD CoPies & " 'r'ii"iJ*ii[ and 29448 ot 2025) PVL "1.pv of common order dt' 2s'os'2025 in W'P' Nos' 2944ti HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 ORDER WP.No.30757 of 2025 I c(, S 1'4 ( ) t0{ I I ,,1 i':l 5 c)). -t-'l ,!-! -.2 _.2 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6,{\,1$ z/ll' t" HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29446 and29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER (oRAL) Since the issue invorved in both thesc writ pctitions is o,e a*l thc same, they are being disposcd ol'by this comtnon orcler.

2. The pctitioners herein are aggrieved by thc impugned letter dated

20.09.2025 issuccl by rcspordent No.3 whereby they rvcre rcclLrestcd to -{ive consent Ietter undcr Scction 146 of thc Gr.catcr Ilyclcrabacl Municipal Co.poration Act, t955 (lor shorr ,GHMC Act') ancl hand over part o1'thcil properry in Plot No. 1056/l and plot No. 1355-E, rcspccrively. situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Flyderabad, af lcctcd in the proposcd road lviden ing. i. Ilearcl Mr. C.V.Narsimhant, lear.ned counsel lbr. the petitioncrs; Mr. Midcle Arun Kurrar, learned Standing Counsel lbr GHMC, appearine Ibr respondcrrts No.2 and 3; and perused the rnaterial on recorcl.

4. l'he lacts in W.P. No.29446 of 2025, being the leacl case, arc set out as under -:-- 2

5. 'l'he petitioncr is tlie owner ol- the Plot No. l()-'( tl, I{oad No.45, .lubilce Hills, tlydcrabad, having purchased thc sanrc ioui the .lubilcc llills ('oopcrative Ilousc Builcling Society undcr lc'1 i ,leli:d salc decd datcd 10.09.199 I . 'l hc pctitioncr constrxctcd horr:t about two (2) decades ago in 2005 by obtaining building permissior and since thcn, shc had bccn lcsiding in the subject propefty. lt is st:r cd that in 2017, notice under Section I.1(r o1'the CillMC' Act datc(l tli.ll l0lT rvas issuccl to thc pctitioner rccFrestirrg hcr t() gtve cousent lettcr. i Lrcl handovcr the parl ol thc sut'r.jcct propcrtv fbl thc purpose of widening rc cxistirrg Road No.45 i.c tl orn 30 I'eet to I 20 lcet. Aggricved by the srr re, t he l)ctitione r filccl W.P. No.28519 of 20 l8 challenging the said noli(r an(l ordcr datcd

13.0t'i.20 l8 rvas lrasscd clirccting thc rcspondcnt author r cs to fbllow duc plocess of lau,. Subsccluently. thc pctitioncr reccir:d noticc undcr Scction I 5( I ) ol' thc Act 20ll rcad u,ith Rule 2l of tlr : rulcs marle therc uudcr clated 17.09.10 l9 fionr thc Special [)cpr.rtr Collcctor., I-and Acquisition, CI{N4('. Ilydcrabad. to rvhiclr she subruit t J hcr objcctions. 'fhcrealicr'. no stcps \\,crc takcrr lty thc lesltonclcr t autholitics ancl proceedings rvcre rcscindcd by virtuc of ltlovisions un, er Scction l9(7) oi the Act 20 I.l since thc tinrc limir ol t'"r'elve ( I 2) nr r rrhs had clapscd While so, the pctitioner lcccivccl anothel noticc unrlc' Secrror.r l-5( I) ol -) the Act, 2011 read with Rule 2l dared 0l .09.2025 from the Speciat Deputy Collector, [-and Acquisition, Gt{MC, rvhich was served on the petitioner on t 2.09.2015.

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the officials of GHMC visited the house ol- the pctitioner and dernanded her to produce ownership documents, link docr-rrnents, building pcrn.rission etc., failing which tlie structures cxisting on the road at'tection portion will bc trcatcd as encloachments upon tlre public load. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in thleatening the petitioner to dernolish lrcr housc in the subjcct propcrty l:\ itlegal, without jurisdiction and in violation ol principles ol'natural justicc.

7. [-earncd counscl tirr thc petitioner furlher submitted that the clairn of the rcspondcnt authorities is sclfl-con t rad ictory. Having initiated the land acquisition proccedings and having issued notice Lrnder Sectior-r l5(l) of thc Act 20 13. the inrpugncd notice, which is a threatcning tactic, was issued to the pctitioncr prcssurizing hcr to surrender the load affected area of her properly. Aggrievcd by tlre sanre, thc petitioner is constlaincd to approach this Court -- -+

8. Learrred Standing Counsel lor GHMC submitted I at thc in.rpugned lctter dated 20.09.2025 rvas issuccl to the pctitioncr.reclr t;ting hcr to give conscrlt lctter ancl hanclover the part ol'thc sutricct rropel'ty tor the put'pose o1'road u rdening. Thc pctitioncr itifbrmeil I tat shc can avail "vas the benellt oll'Dl{ ('['ranslerable Developrnent Rigtrts) i rsteacl of uroney conrpensation under the lrrovisions of'the Act,20 I3. I earned Standing Counsel subnrittccl that thc sul-r.icct propcrty ol'the ltitioncr rvill be accluilcd by lbllorvin-u rluc proccss ol larv

9. 'l'hc recortl cliscloscs that the notice under Scctiorr l5( I ) of'the Act, 20 I -l datcd 0 t.09.2025 rvas issued to tlle pctitioncr ,uvhcr- in hcr- name was shor.vn her at Sl.No. [2 irr lcspect of' thc subject pr'ol)( rty hcaring Plot No.l056/l adnreasurir.rg l(r5.98 scluare yarcls. lt a1,1-:ars prclir-ninary notillcation s,as issued under Scctiou II (I) olthc,\tt 20 l3 (details of q,[-rich arc not a\ ailablc) lbl acquisition of' the sub j, c1 111'ur.r1y and thercatier noticc rrnder Scctiorr l-5( I ) o1' thc Act. I )13 rvas issued Section l4(r ol tlrc CHMC Act entporvers the Conrnti:,: ioner. CHMC to acquire any iurnrovablc propcrly by agrcenrent on srr Ir tenns at such ratcs or priccs as apploved by the Standing Contntitt.: ol'thc GHMC Scction 147 dcals rvitlr the proccclurc rvhcrr ir-nr.nor nb t lrropcrtl, carrnot ) be acquired under Section 146 of ttre CUMC Act. Thus, when agreement between the property owner and GHMC cannot be entered into fbr the reason the orvncr olthe pr'operty does not give consent lor acquisition ol his/her properly, thc next step to bc taken by thc GHMC is to resoft to Section 147 ol the CHMC Act fbr acquiring the propefty under the provisions ol'the Act 20 13.

10. ln the instant case. thc land acquisition proccedings have beett initiated and Scctiou l5( I ) notice dated 01.09.2025 has been issued to the petitioner. It is also borne out olthc record, on the earlier two occasious t.e 201 7 and 2025, the pctitioner was not willing to give consent undcr Seclion I46 ol'the CHMC Act lbr handing over possession of the subject propefty. Lcarned counsel lirr the petitioncr also contended that the petltloner ls contesting the instant land acquisition proceedings and Section 15( l) cncluiry is pending I l. ln the opinion of tliis Court, lol obtaining corlsent fi'orr the petitioncl fbr acquiring part ol' the subject propefty, Section 146 of the CIIMC Act is to be fbllowed. lt is apparent on the lace of the record that consent was not givcn by the petitioner tbr acquisition of her land lbr the pul-posc of road rvidening. Thus, havirtg set tlle Iand acquisition process 6 in rnotion, the respondetlt authoritics do not have any I r thority to tssUe tlre irnpugnerl letter clatetl 20.09.2025. Howevcr, it ttlir" Llotcd that eveu duc to thc pcndcncy ol'the land acquisition procceding; thc respoucleut authorities ar(] always at Iiberty to negotiate r'vith Ll t Itctitioner and rcque st her to accept the cotnpetlsatiotr in tenns ol t ht: I DR. Instead of doing so, the irr;tugned letter dated 20.09.2025 is issucii rorc so, lvithout rcle rence to the lanrl accluisitioli proceeclirrgs alltl ttoltt t s ttttder Scctitl;r t5(l) ot'the Act, 20 li. t'unhcr', surprisirrgty, allegalr,r is rnatlc in thc irrl-rugned lctter that the petitiorler will lrc trcatccl as croachcr ot' the public roacl. 'fhe le is no tratcrial availablc rvrtl thc respoudcnt authorities nol is it their casc that thc pctitioner ltas enert achcd thc public road. In vicw of thc santc, the itnpugned lctter is arbitr t r'. urtsustainablc ancl liable to be set asidc

12. tn the light of the above discussiotr, these 'r'it l)ctttr()ns a[c allorved. The in'rpugnecl lcttcr datcd 20.09.2025 is I clcbv se1 asidc 'fhis orcler. hou'evcr. shall rtot cotne itr the wa1' thc lesl;ondcr-tt autl-rolities in golrlg ahead rvith thc land accluisitiol proccedings and acquirc the sub.icct pl'opcrty ol the pctitioncrs by pass t t arvard uttcler the prrrvisions ol' Act, 20 l3 or by enterin-u into n(] !t( ,1 ati(rns u ith the 7 petltloners requesting them to accept the cotnpensation in lernrs of the TDR instead of'money compensation by tbllowing due process of'Ias, There shall be no ot'der as to costs. As a sequel lhereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pcnding in tlrcse writ petitions, stand closed. September 25,2025 ltn I\ B. VIIAYSEN REDDY,I

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments