M/s. Shalimar v. The Greater Hyderabad lt/lunicipal Corporation

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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the notice issued by 35/ACP/TPS/C18lGHMCl2025, dated 10.10.2025 relating to the proposal of Road widening from Road No.12, Banjara Hills junction, Virinchi Hospital to Agrasen junction, without following the procedure of law or publication of preliminary and final notifications under the,provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said notice and direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the residential house bearing No.8-2-674lB13, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad under the guise of road Lr.No.L- widening, without follcvring the procedure of taw for acquisitir; rr under Right to Fair compensation and rransparency in Land Acquisitior- Rehabiritation and Resettlement Act, 20,1 3. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 151 cpc praying that in the ci.or mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ,nay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings reraling to the propos err road widening of Road No.12, Banjara Hirrs, Hyderabad on which the resi,:rentiar house of the petitioner bearing premises No B-2-674lBi3 is located wit,.ou following the due procedure of law, perrding disposal of the writ petition. counser ror the Petiticn" ' ,:T',,yE?'"tf-X="lNrtSS$3,I+ counser =:r Counsel for Respondents No.1&2 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondents No.3 : Gp FOR MA & UD The Court made the following: ORDER w IIONOURABLE SRI.IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY wRIT PII,TI'IION No.31078 of 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Mr. Vedula Vetrkataratnaua, learned Senior Counsel appearing tbr the petitioner, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel fbr GHMC, appcaring lor respondent Nos.l and 2-

2. Leamecl Standing Counsel fbr respondent Nos. I and 2 subn-ritted that subject matter 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

3. Recording aforesaid submission, the writ petition is allowed in tcrms of thc common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.29446 and29448 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025. No order as to costs. As a sequel thcreto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petltlgq qliall stand ctosed. SD/-B.REKHA RANI A ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, l.TheCommissioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation,TankBund' Hyderabad.

2. The Deoutv Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Circle No.tB. iubilee Hills, HYderabad. 3 The princioal Secretary, I\rlunicipal Administration and Urban Development - Oepartment, State of felangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

4. One CC to M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate lOPUCl ;frr-1,:1ffi7 --,;+: ::. ./ J One CC to SRI lv4 ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC IOPT'-'C l Two CD CoPies (Alono with a copy of the common order' dated 25-Og-21' '2'i ' in W P-Nos 29446 ir zg+"+e of 2025 to this order) BSK 5 6 o HIGH COURT DATED:1 411012025 CC TODAY '.1i , ORDER WP.No.31078 of 2025 {:S4 ,J P. o .J )- 1,1 lli 2[6 { Z ::t i'.IC ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \q ,{ \e L -%ffiry .:.-.- / HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29rMG and29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAr.) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the sarne, they are being disposed ol by this common order.

2. The petitioneLs lrerein are aggrievcd by thc impugned letter dated

20.09.2025 issued by respondont No.3 u,hereby they were requested to give consent letter under Seotion 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, Jubilee I{ills, Hyderabad, affected in the proposed road widening

3. Heard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, leanled counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Midde Arun Kurnar, leamed Standins 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 -i. The petitio.cr is thc ow'ner of the plot No. r0: r. r l{cad No.45. Jubilec IIills. Hvdcrabad. rraving purchased the sarn() Ii. rrn thc Jubilec I Iills ()ooperatir o Hotrse I]uilding Society unclcr rc.: .:r, .recl sale deed dated 10.09. I 99 L The petitioner constructed hou;,_ . rbout trvo (2) decades ago in 2005 by obtaining building penllissi\,,) ,rLrd sincc then, she had been residing in the subject property. It is srrL c,l that in 2017, notice unde. Section i46 of the GHMC Acr datcd lg.r-r r, ,17 *.as issued to the petitionel requesting her to give consent lettelrtr hanclor cr thc pall ol'thc sub.ject property lbr ttre purpose of widening I re existing Road No.45 i.e. frorn 8rl fbct to t20 feet. Aggrieved by the sirr:rr the petitioner fllcd W.P. No.28i39 of 2018 challenging the said notrc(r ir rd order clated

13.08.2018 rvas passed directing the respondent authorrrr,:: to fbllorv duc process ol [arv. Subsequently, the petitioner receirrrti notice under Scctio' r5(l) or rhc Act 2013 read with Rute 2l o1'th. ruics rnade trrere under dared 27 .09.2019 lrom the Special Deputy. ( i. llector, I_and Acquisition, GHI\,I., Hyderabad, to which she subrnittrtl ier objections. Thereafter. no steps were taken by the respondent :rL thorities and proceedings were rescinded by virtue of provisions un,.l,:r Section l9(7) of the Act 2013 since the time limit of twelve (12) mon h. haci elapsed. While so, the pctitioner received another notice under :,e. tion I 5( I ) of .) tlre Act,20t3 read rvith Rule 2l dated 01 .09.2025 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, rvhich was served on the petitioner on 12.09.2025

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the olficials oIGHMC visited the housc of the petitioner and demanded her to produce ou,nership documents, link documents, building pen-nission etc., failing which the structures existing on the road aff-ection portion rvill be treated as encroachments upon thc public road. It is contended that the action ol the respondent authorities in threatening the petitioner to demolish her house in the subject property TS iltegal, rvithout jurisdiction and rn violation of principles of natural justice

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lurther submitted that the claim ol the respondent authorities is self-contradictory. I{aving initiated the land acquisition proceedings and having issued notice under Section 1 5( I ) of the Act 2013, the impugned notice, which is a threatening tactic, was issued to the petitioner pressurizing her to surrender the road aflected area of her property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 4

3. Learnecl Standing CounseI for GI]MC subnittecr .hrrt thc irnpr,rgned letter datcd 20.0().2025 n,as issued to the petitioner recLird\.ins her to give consenL Ietter irnd handoYer the pa|t of thc subject l)ropcrtv tor the purpose ol'roari uidening. 'l'he petitioner rvas infbrmerl rlr.tt shc can avail thc beneljt of I l)lt (-l'ranslerable Developrnent Right: r rrr jtead ol money compensirtion urrcler thc provisions of the Act, 2013. ( :lnted Standing Counsel subr.nitted that the subject property ol the lrcritioncr rvill bc accyuired by lbllou,ing due process of law

9. -l'he recotl discloses that the notice under Scctiol I 5(1) of the Act, 20 I 3 dated 01 .09.2025 was issued to the petitioner wher rr r her narne u,as shorvn her at Sl.No. 12 in respect of the subject proner .y bearing Plot No. 1056 I adme asuring 165.98 square yards. It aplr; rrs pleliminary notiflcation u,as issued under Section 11 (l) of the Acr, )013 (details of ivhich are not available) for acquisition of the suhi,-'r:r properly and thereaftel notice under Section 15(I) of the Act, t() 3 rvas issued Scction 146 of lhc GHMC Act empowers the Commis:;i,rner, GHMC to acquire any inrntovable property by agreement on sucl terms at such rates or pnces irs approved by the Standing CommirLre of thc GHMC Section 147 deals r.vith the procedure when immovabl: rroperty cannot w 5 be acquired under Section 146 of the GHMC Act. Thus, when agreement between the property owner and GHMC cannot be entered into for tlie reason the orvner ol the property does not give consent for acquisition of his/her property, the next step to be taken by the GH MC is to resort to Section 147 of the GHMC Act for acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act 20 1 3.

10. In the instant case, the land acquisition ptoceedings have been initiated and Section l5(l) notice dated 01.09.202-5 has been issued to tlie petitioner. It is also borne out of the record, on thc earlier tu,o occasions l.e 2017 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. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is contesting the instant land acquisition proceedings and Section I 5( i ) enquiry is pending

11. [n the opinion of this Courl, for obtaining consent from the petitioner for acquiring part of the subject propefty, Section 146 of the GHMC Act is to be followed. It is apparent on the lace of the record that consent was not given by the petitioner for acquisition ofher land for the purpose of road widening. Thus, having set the land acquisition process -F"-.@ 6 in motion, the rcspondcnt authorities do not have an1. tLr horitl, to issuc the in-rpugned lcLtcr clated ?.0.09.2025. Horvever, it nrrr, roted that cvcn due to the pcndcncy of the land acquisition proceeding,. the respondent authoritics are irluays at liberty to negotiate rvith .ltc petitioner and request her to acce pt the compensation in terms of th. f l)R. lnsteacl ol' doing so. the impurncd letter dated 20.09.2025 is issued 1r ore so, rvithout relerence to the land acquisition proccedings and notl;e. undcr Section I5( I ) oi thc Acr. l0l i. Furlher, surprisingly, allegar ron is nrade in the impugned Iettcr that tlte petitioner wilt be treated as rrn rr.oasher o1- the public load. Ihcre is no matenal available witl. he rcspondent authoritics nor is it their casc that the petitioner has encroi,ched the public road. In 'ie* o1'tlre sarne, the impugned letter is arbiLr;tr. , unsustainable and liable to be ser asicle .

12. In thc light o1' the above discussion, these r,rt petitjons are allorved. 'I'he inrpugned letter dated 2O.O7.ZOZ5 is hcreby ser aside. This order', hotvcver, shall not comc in the way,r. lhe rcsponclent authorities in going ahead with the land acquisition p.oceedings and acquire the subject property ofthe petitioners by passin-r r,ward under the provisions of Act, 2013 or by entering into negotiations rvith the 7 petitioners requesting them to accept the compensation in tcnns ol the fDI{ instead of money cornpensation by following due proccss ol la,uv l'hcre shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thercto, rniscellaneous applications, if any, pending in thesc rvrit petitions, stand closed Septenrber 25,2025 B. VIJAYSEN I{EDDY,J