High Court · 2025

Petition under Artrcle 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 wrat, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tvlandamus declaring the action of the respondents No 2 and 3 in issuing theimpugnedNotice56s/571l8575l7]5;A}P/CB/RW/GH[/Cl2O14daled12-11- 2014 directing the petitioner to handover consent for the effected portron of his property bearing tvlunicipal No 5-7-568' 569' 570 and 571 ' and the First Floor therein (MCH No 5- 1-575 Part), admeasuring 1 79 Sq Yards' Situated at Nampally, Hyderabad, as riiegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently set-aside the same' l.A NO: 1 OF 2014 WPMP NO: 43 621 0F 2014 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit frled in support of the petitron the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondenls No 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from hts property beartng Nluniopal No 5 7-568' 569' 570 & 571' and the First Floor therein (MCH No 5'1 575 Part) admeasuring 179 Sq' Yards' Situated at Nampally, Hyderabad pendrng disposal of the main wrrt petition' Counsel for the Petitioner SRI MOHD ZIA-UL-HAQ Counsel for the Respondents No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondents No'2&3: SRI M ARUN KUMAR' SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3 4864 of 2014 ORDER: This u,rit petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in rssurng rmpugned notice dated l2.Il.2OI4, directing the petitioner to give consent for the effected portion of his properry bearing Municipal No.S_7_56g, 569, 570 & 57 1 admeasuring 179 Sq.yrds, situated at Nampally, Hyderabad, iilegal, arbitrarSz and for consequential relief. AS 2 Heard Sri K.Jamali Mohd.Kaleem Ul Haque, learned for the petitioner and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Starding Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 coun sel

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner represented that the issue raised in the pre.ent writ petitions is squarely covered by the Common Order dated 1S.10.2025, passed in W.P.No.34896 of 2O14 and batch, and therefore, prayed to dispose of the present writ petitions in terms of orders passed by this Court in W.p.No.34g9 6 of 20t4 and batch. I I F- ) 4 Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos 2 to 3 did not dispute the submissions made by the lcarned Counsel for the pe ttttoner J Accorclinglv. this q'nt petttion is disposecl ol irr terms of order datecl 15 1O.2025 in W P No 34896 of 2014 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs Misceilaneous petltlons pendrng' if any' sha1l stand closed' SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY -l'ssrsrnur REGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ CTION OFFICER 2 To, Deveropment 8, Abids, Hyderabad DePartment, Secretartat' 1 rhe principar gecretary Y:U:33llUi::[Xl??,'r11'rban 2 The commissioner Greater Hyderabad $./lunicrpar corporation, Having office ' ;i'i;;;t;k-Bund HYderabad I The Asst. city pranner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, circle No' 4 One CC to SRI IVOHD ZIA-UL'HAQ Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of 6 One CC to SRI t\il ARUN KUMAR SC FOR GHMC. IOPUCI 7 Two CD CoPies Telangana [OUTI dated 15-10-2025 in W P No 34896 of2014 (Along with a coPY ot the Ordet ' io this Order) BSK BSw HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 - ORDER WP.No.34864 of 2014 rt1 t Bc \ o I 2 3 r4AR 2026 * * PATC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o .{td k"' ((\- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION Nos.34896 34898 34922 34945 34951 34958 and 35 I78 of20l4 COMMON ORDER: The prayer sought for in all the Writ petitions is one and the same, i.e., to issue a Writ of Manclamu-s directing the respondents not to interfere u.ith thc peaceful posscssion and enjoyment of the petitioncrs over their respective propenies situated at Nampally Cross Roads, Hyderabad, in any manuer, except by following due process of law, and further, not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective propenics except by acquiring the same and by paying compensation as per the Right to Fair cornpensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act.

2. Since the issue involved in alt these Writ petitions is common, all the Writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by cornmon order

3. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, leamed senior counsel appearing for petitioners, and Sri M.Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for respondents-GHMc. 2 n.p.w,.tttcellli/4 aad botch -

4. Learned scnior counsel appearing lor the petitioners s,bnrittccl that tlle pctrtioners arc the ou,ncrs ol- their resl)ective properties situat.'d at Nantpally Cross Rnuds, Ilyderabad, liaving purchascd the sarnc undcr registercd sale dccds, and thcy havc been in pcacctul possession and enjoyrnent ol the same. He furtlier subrnittcd that the respondents_GHMC are interfering with thc possession o1' the subjcct propertics by thc petitioners without lollou'irg duc process as contemprated uncrer Ia*.. I{e rufther subrnittcd that in fact, thc respondents_GHN,f C issr.rcd noticcs dated

19.11 .2012 to the petitioners calling upon them to produce the ou,nership documents of their respective propefties and further rntimating thern that thcir propertics woultl be aft.ected in rhc proposccl road widening from Ekrninar junction to Bazarghatt junction including Slip road/Ekminar junction irnprovement. Learned senior counsel further submitted that thc respondents have not initiated any proceedings for acquisition of the respective properlies of the petitioners and have straightaway issucd notices to the petitioners to produce the ownership documents, which is contrary to the settled principle of law. By contending thus, learned senior counseI submitted that if the respective properties of the 3 LNA, J WP.No.34896 of 2014 ahd batch petitioners are required for the proposed road widening, the respondents-GHMC rnay be dirccted to follow duc process of larv for acquisition and prayed to allow the Writ petitions.

5. Learned Standing Counsel lor respondents_GHMC submitted that if the respective properties ol the petitioners are required for the proposed road widening, the respondents would initiate appropriate procecdings lor acquisition of sarne in accordance with law.

6. Right to property is a constitutional right and no person shall be deprived of his,iher propcrty, however, the Governmcnt can acquire private property il the same is required for public purpose(s), by following due lcgal process.

7. ln view of the same and recording the submissions of the leamed Standing Counsel lor respondents_GHMC, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents_GHMC not to interfere with the respective properties of the petitioners except in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. 4 LNA, J 11P.No.3,1896 ol20l1 and butch L Nlisccllancous petitrons pending, if uny, shall stand closcd. No costs Date: l 5 l().2()25 dr' LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHE'[TY, J