Madhubala Kapoor. Wo. Harsh Kapoor. Aged about 75 years v. 1. State of Telangana. Represented by the Principal Secretary

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Wrtt, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus setting aside the proceedings in notice dated 08.09.2025 lssued by Respondent No.2 as illegal, void, and without jurisdiction and direct the Respondents more specifically Respondent No.2 to act strictly in accordance with law and not to take any coercive steps in respect of the Petitioner's property except through proper acquisition proceedtngs and grant the Petitioner just and fair compensation for the affected portion of her property. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition lJnder 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 direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps to demolish or drspossess the petitioner from any part of the subject property bearing EL No B-2- 29311741A127 situated at 'Road No.'14, Banlara Hills. Hyderabad, admeasuring 405 sq. yds.. pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s AMERA PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC The Court made the following ORDER - IIONOURI\I]LI, SRI JUS'tICI.- I}. \/IJAYSEN REDDY WRI'I' PE'l'I'l'10\ No.3l 182 of 2025 OItl)ER: (t)ltAl-) Heard Mr. Amera Pasha, learnetl counsel fbr the petitioner, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, lcarnetl Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4

2. Learned Standing Counscl lirr respondent Nos.2 to 4 subrnitted that subject matter in this rvrit pctitior) is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of 2025 dated25.09.2025.

3. Recording aloresaid subnrission, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order passecl by this Courl in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of2025 dated 25.09.2025. No orcler as to costs. As a scquel thereto. miscellancous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closcd. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-U. SUDHA A SISTAN T REGIST SECTION OFFICER To

1. 2

4. The PrinciPal Secretary, Municipal Administratton a Secretariat Build ing, State of Telang ana at Hyderab ad. Telangana The Commissioner, Greater Hyderab ad MuniciPal C orporation, Ta nk Bund, Hvderabad it;"D;;;i" Commissioner, Jubilee Hills Circle No 18, Greater Hyderabad It/unicioal Corporation. Khairtabad Tone Hyderabad' i;; AJ=it;;i'C;rrni.t,on",. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Hyderabad. Urban DeveloPment A{.,-- Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR IMCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVE-LOPTMENT. High 6 One CC to LAls AMERA PASHA, Advocate [OPUC] 7 One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL B Two CD Copies FOR GHMC, Advocate (OPUC) (Along with a copy of the common order in WP.No.29446 and 29448 of 2025 dated 25-9-2025 shall be annexed to this order) SA BS ^Y* I .._:-:_:- ( \\. c) C ( 2$ T0[ :\,.; \)l 'N;- \ .:.\ HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 ORDER WP.No.31182 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ t0\?1 N I t t\ HONOURABLE SRr JUSTTCII B. VIJAYSITN RITDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.294216 and 29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAL) Since the issuc involved in both thcsc ri,rit pc-titions is onc and the same, they are being disposed of by this conrmon order'.

2. -l'he petitioners herein are aggricvecl b1, tlrc iurprrrnctl lettcr clatccl

20.09.2025 issued by respondcnt No.i u'hcrebv thcv * e rc rc(lLrcstc(l to -9ive consent letter under Section 146 ol the (ircater l{yclcrabacl Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (tbr short 'C;lti\lC .\ct')arrd hancl over parl of their property in Plot No. 105(r/l and Plot No. I 155-L. respcctively, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee IIills, Hydcrabad. al'lcctcd in the proposed road widening. i. Hcard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, lcarnctl counscl lirl thc pctitioners; Mr. Midrle Arun Kurrar, lcarnerl Stanrling ('or.rnscl lbr ( il tM('. appcarinr fbr respondents No.2 and 3; and peruscd thc nraterial on rccorrl

4. The t-acts in W.P. No.29446 ot'2025, bcing the lcad case. are sct out as u ndcr: .- pe'titioner is thc or'vner of the Plot No'1056/1, Road No'45' -5. -l-he .ltrbilcc Hills. tl1'tlcrabacl, having purchased the same fiom the 'lubilec FIills Coopelltir c Housc Builcling Socicty under registered sale deed darccl 10.09. I 99 I . 'l-he petitioner constructed house about two (2) clecadcs aso rn f005 by obtaining building pennission and sincc thcn. shc lrad bcen resicling in the subject property. Itis stated that in 2017' rloticc undcr Scctiou l4(r of thc GHMC Act dated 18.12.20 l7 was issuecl to thc pctitioner rcqucsting hel to give consent letter lrnd handovcr thc part of the subiect propcrry fbr the purpose of widening thc existing l{oacl No..i5 i.c. lionr 80 t'ect to 120 tcet. Aggricved by the sarlle, the petitiotler filecl W.P. No.l85l9 ol20l8 challenging the said noticc and order dated l-1.()8 20 ll'l rvas passecl directing the respondent authoritics to lbllorv duc llroccss ol' Iau. Subsecluently, thc petitioner received notice undet' Section l5(l)olthe Act 20li read with Rule 2l of the rules made there uncle r clatcd 17.09.20 l9 t)'orn thc Special Deputy (lollcctor', [.and Accluisitiorr. Gl INIC. tlydcrabad. to lvhich she submittetl hcr ob.icctions. '[hcrcalter, n() slcps rvere taken by the respondent authorities and procecclines s,cr-e rcsciuded b1, virtuc of provisions undcr Section l9(7) ol tlrc Act 20 l-t since the tinre Iirnit of twelve (12) nlonlhs had elaPsed. Whilc so, thc pctitioner rcceir ccl anothcl noticc under Section l5( I) ol' the Act,20 l3 rcad with Rule 2l datr:d 01.09.2025 lionr the Special l)eputy Collector, Land Acquisition, C HMC, which *,as sen ecl on the petitioner on I 2.09.2025.

6. It is allegcd that on 23.09.2025, the oUlcials ol(illMC'r'isitccl the house ol thc petitioner and (lcmanrled her to proclucc ou ncrshiq-r docurnents, link clocuments, building pemrission etc.. lailing u hich thc strllctules existing on the road allbction poniorr ri,ill bc trcatctl :rs cncrrachntents Lll)on the public road. It is contendecl tlrat tlrc irctiou ol' tlie respondent authorities in threatening the petitioner to clcrnolish hcr house irr the sr.rbjcct property IS illegal, rvithout -jurisdiction and irr violation of principlcs of natural justice.

7. Learned counsel {br the petitioner lurther subnrittccl that the claint o1'the rcspondent authorities is sell--contradicto ry. llaving initiltccl the land accluisition proceedings ancl having issued noticc unrlcr Scctiorr I 5( I ) of the Act l0li, the irrpugned notice, lvhich is a thrcaterring tactic. rvas issucd to the petitioner pressurizing her to surrencler thc roacl a ll-ected arca of lrer property. Aggrievcd by the sarne. thc pctitioner is conslrained to approach this Court. -i -- li. I-earnctl Standing ('ounse I lbr GIIMC submitted that the impugned Ietter rlatccl l() 09.1025 rvas issucd to the petitioncr requesting her to give conscnl lcflcI i t(l hand0r'cr thc l)art ot' the subject propeny fbr the llurllosc ol'rur:rd u'iclening. 'l he lretitioncr rvas inlbrrncd that shc can avail thc [tcncflt ol- I-l)R ('l ranst-erable [)cvcloprnent Riglrts) rnstead o1'ntoney conlpensati(rn urrdcr the provisions of the Act. 2013. Lcarncd Standing Counscl subrrriucd that thc sub.jcct ploperty ol thc pctitioner rvill bc accpircd ['rv tirllorving tlue process ol lair

9. I hc recorrl tliscloscs that lhe notice under Section I 5( l) ol the Act, 20 l-l datcd 0I .(19.1025 rvas issucd to thc pctitioner whercin her narrc was shou n hcr at Sl.\o.12 irr respect ol' the sub.iect propcrly bearing Plot No.l0-5(r/t aclrreasulir.rs l(r5.9,3 squarc yards. It appears prelinrinary nolilicati()n u rr. issuccl urrdcr Section I I ( t ) ol the Act. 20 13 (dctails ol' rvhich are nol ar ailablc) tbr acquisition of the subject properly and thcrcalicl n()ticc undcr Scction I 5( I ) ol the Act, 201 3 was issued Scction I4(r ol'lhc CIIMC r\ct crnpowcrs the Commissioncr, GIIMC to accluirc anv inrnovablc propcrl-"- by agleement on such terrrs at such rates or prices :rs appror cd b1, the Standing Cornrnittcc ol the GFIMC. Scctiorr l-17 deals ri ith tlrc prrrcc,Jurc u hcn intntovatrle property canr-rot l be acquired under Section l4(r of the GI{MC Act. 'fhus, lvhert agreernent bctrvecn tlie propcny orvncr and (;tlMC cannot be cntcred into fbr the reason the owncr of the propeny cloes not give consent lbr acquisition ol' Iiis/he r property, the nert step to be tal:en by the CillMCl is to resort tcr Scction 147 ol'the CIIMC Act tbr acquiring the propertl, under the provisiorrs ol thc Act 20 I l. I0. Irr the iustant case. the land acquisitiorr procceclines havc bccn initiatcd and Scction I5( I ) noticc dated 0l.09.2025 has been issued to thc petitioner. [t is also borne out ol- the record, on the carlier two occasions l.e 201 7 and 2025, the petitioner was not willing to give consent uncicr Scction 146 olthe CIIMC Act tbr handing over possession of'thc sulrjcct propcny. Lcarned courtsel lor the petitioncr also contendecl tlrat thc pctrtr0ncr ls contesting the instant land accluisition proceedings rncl Scction l5( l) cnquiry is pcnding. I l. In the opinion of this C-'our1, lor obtaining consent firrn the pctitioner lbr accluiring parl ol the subjcct property, Scction 146 o1'thc Cf IMC Act is to bc lbllorved. It is apparent on the lace ol'thc recorrl that conscnt was not given lry the pctitioner lllr acquisition o1'hc'r land lbr thc puryose of roacl r.viclening. I hus, having set the land acquisition process rr-- 6 in rnotion. thc responclcnt authoritics do not havc any authority to issue the inrpugnetl letter dated 20.09.2025. llowevcr' it rnay noted that even dle to thc pertdcttcv o1'tltc land acquisition procecdirtgs, the respondent autltorities ate a lu'aYs at liberrl, to uc-uotiate rVith the petitioner and request her to accept the conrpen:;ation in terllls of tlle IDR. Instead of cloing so, thc irnpugncd lettel datcd l0 09 2025 is issued more so, rvithout rclerence lo tltc Iattd accltrisition procecdings antl noticcs under Sectiott l5( I ) ol' the Act. 20 I -1. [:urthet. surprisingly, allegation is made in the inrpugncd lcttcr tltat thc petitioncr u'ill bc treatcd as crtcroacher of the putrlic road. l hcrc is no tratcrial ai'ailablc with thc respondent authorities nor rs it thcir casc that thc l)etitioner has encrt,ached the public roacl. In vierv ,.,f tlrc satnc, thc inrpugnecl lettcr is arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to l)e sct asrdc.

12. [n the light ol' the atrovc cliscussion, these rvlit petrtions arc allou,ccl. 1-he inrgrugncd lcttcr tlated 20.09.2025 is hcrcby set asidc. This orcler, hoscr cr. shall not coure in thc rvay ol' the respondent authoritics in goine ahcad rvith thc land accluisition proccedings and acquirc the sub.ject propcfty of'the pctitiorrcrs by passing award under the provisions o1' r\cl. 20l.l or by cnteling into ncgotiations r.vith the petitioncrs requcsting them to acccpt thc compensation in ten s of thc l'D[{ instead of nroney cornpensatiorr hy lollorving clue ltroccss ol'lau, 'l'herc shall bc no ordcr as to costs. As a sequcl thereto, rniscellaneous applications. if any, pending in these writ pctitions, stand closecl. September 25,2025 IiIi( B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J