Goutham Constructton Compa v. 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 a Writ Direction or Order more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 5th Respondent in submitting a Report U/ s. 15(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition' Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, without considering objections submitted by the Petitioner owing to non-application of mind consequently to declare the action of 4th Respondent in passing order in File No. C131312O24 ":: .F dated 30.08.2025 under Section 15(3) of The Right to Fai. Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetflement Act, 2013, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and also in violation of Arlicle 14 and 300(A) of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions cf The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules made therein. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C:urt may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to order passed in File No. C131312024 dated 30.08.2025 under Section 15(3) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.NARASIMHA REDDy Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2,4&5 : Gp FOR LAND ACQUIS|TION Counsel fbr Respondent No.3&6:SRt c.MAOHUSUDHAN REDD),. SC FORGHMC The Court made the following: ORDER r_Z r.fOrfrgrfa;x*r'*F2 ",' ., HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31722 OF 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) Hcard Mr. A.Narasimha Reddy, leamcd couns'el flor the petitionen Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GI{MC. appcaring for respondents No.3 and 6; and pcrused the material on record

2. It is the case of the petitioncr that its objections dated 07.06.2025 to thc notice No.Cl313/2024 dated 07.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4 undcr Scction l5(l) of the fught to l"air Compensation and Transparency in [-and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (for short 'Act 2013') in connection with acquisition of the subject property bearing I{.No.2- I -57iA over Plot Nos.39 and 40 in Survey No,648, situatcd at Uppal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District for the purpose ol widcning of the road leading lrom I Iabsiguda to Nagole Inner Road via Uppal Junction have not been objeotionably considered and the same is contrary to the law laid dorvn by the I{on'ble Supreme Court in Women's Education Trust and another v. State of Haryana and othersl which reads as under: ' (zo t:) t scc g9 2

5.4. 'l'hc [-and Acquisition Collector is dun -.round ro objectivcll considcr the arguments advanced by th,: objcctor and makc recournrendations. du[1' supported br brit'1'reasons, as to rlhv tllc particular piece of land should or shorrl.l rloL he acquiroJ and rrhcthcr the plea put iorward b1' th. objcctor merits ircccptancc. [n other words. the recomnrendat ous made by the l,and Acquisition Collector should rcflect objccrire app[cation of mind to the cntire record including the rbjections filed by thc intcrcsted persons-

3. I-earned counsel lbr the petitioner submifted that ( 1r: mcasurcments of the subject propcfly have not becn taken fiom the road rncdian. Irurther. the existing road is of 200 leet and docs not requir,-' an1, u,idening; the Hyderabad Mctro ltail Limited (HMRL) occupied pcrlion of the road and had been using it for the purpose ol parking. l hat several objeotions have been submitted by the pctitioner. however. the ;arne have been disposed of mcchanically stating that thc present acquis tion is approved undcr SRDI) (Strategic Road Development Plan) a rtl RI)P (Road Development Plan) by the Commissioner. GHMC rvhich is in the interest of the general public. It is submifted that there is viol.tion of statutory mandate under Scction 15 of the Act 2013, as such. the petitioner is constrained 1o approach this Cou( 4 Leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC submittcd t hat acq uisir ion is for road widcning and it is in the interest of the public in rreneral. Further, l I J there is approval under SRDP and RDP by the Commissioner, GIIMC tbr the present acquisition, as such, the ob.jections of the petitioner have been rejected. Leamcd Standing Counsel subrnitted that several other propertics on the road leading lrom Habsiguda to Nagole Inner fung Road via Uppal Junction havc bccn acquired and considering the objections only of thc petitioner would bc a lutile exercisc. Scvcral owners of the properties on the same road alignmcnt have not ob_jectcd lor acquisition. Learned Standing Counscl lurther submitted that thc road widening is in the interest of gcncral public and the same is not disputed by the pctitioner. Thereforc, no relief may be passed in this rvrit pctition

5. Considering the submissions ol the learned counsel for thc petitioner that thc measurements ol'thc sublect property have not been properly taken from the road median and that the existing road is of 200 feet and does not rcquire road widening, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh representation /objections rvithin a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, respondents No.4 and 5 shall pass appropriate ordcrs by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other conccmed/interested persons, in accordance with law within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter 4

6. With the ahove obsenations. this writ petition disposcd of 1S Therc shall be no ordcr as to costs As a sequcI thcreto, miscellancous applications. i rnr'. pcnding in this writ petition' stand closed sD/-G.JyorHr //TRUE coPY/, ASSISTANT .ecffiorrrCen 'E.GISTRAR To, u "o Hvderabad. Corooiation HYderabad' cha l-"M a I ka1s i ri D istri ct, ^ ii;;;;;o*ii rt'r'ni"ip't Coru rr atiort' Tankbund' Deoartment, Secretanat,'tEi'i6"n' st't"-Buildings' Hvt erabad

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urtran Development 2. ;;5 Ei!'i;,"t bi"r r ""tJi, 3. The commrssroner, "";# 4 The Soecial Collector (L A')' and Commissioner',GHtv1( Hyderabad' I iilE E'rE.iri 6"pi,iv drr""i"iil n i cte'ter Hvderaba'i vurrcipal 6. The Assistant City Planner' Town Planning Section Circle: No' 2' Uppal' z. i:i".,"bCiJ sRt ANARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate i Y,ll" dd.i"-cP iod rvlCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' l- g TWo ics to Gp FoR LAND ACQUlSlTloN, High Courl for the State of ,,. l?:t8t 3'J'3illtlir8,yJlAN REDDY, sc FoR GHMC roPucl '1 1.Two CD CoPies ^ BSK Telanoana. [OUT] Hvderabad. .,tor'331n r",. the state of i l I i i i i I i I i i I ! I I I \ HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 CC TODAY , .,.,-:.. 'ii: r :->- r -r-z:1.,:,'.t,. '<. 9 q o trJ .$' \ + ..,:,9- l / ORDER WP.No.31722 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS