Smt. Chokkarapu Sorojini Devi,(died) per Lrs 2 to 8 v. T-he City Planner, Circle No. 18, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad'

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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in acting upon the petitioners representations in releasing the compensation amount to the petitioner and restraining the 4th respondent from making any further constructionl; on the property as illegal, contrary to law and in violation of Art. 300A of the r:onstitution of lndia and in violation of Section 636, 452 and Chapter Xll of GHMC and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the illegal constr ctions made upon the petitioners property. 1ott 201 oF 201 Petitior under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidarrit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the Respondent No.4 from making any illegal and uttauthorized constructions on the petitioner's Property got reflected as Door No. 12-8-423110, Mettuguda Secunderabad, else the petitioner would suffer greater irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. K PALLAVI counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3: sRl G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (sc FoR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No. 5to8 : The Court merde the following: ORDER n IN THE HIGI{ COUI(T' I;OI( ]'HE STAI'E OIT TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRt' I I'[TI'I'ION NO.6197 OF 2O1O DA IE: 23.0't .2026 Between Smt. Chokkarapu Saroiini Devi (cliecl) w/o.late Prabhuling,arn, per I [is, i.e., ' petitiorrer Nos.2 to B. The Grea ter I { i, cl e ra [',a rl \4 u rr ic i p-rat I C-<l rpora tion, Secunderabaci I)ivisiorr anci sevt:n others. .... Petitioners .... Respondents ORDER: T'he prescnt rvrit petit'ion has been filed to issue appropriate writ, order, or c{iret.tion preferably a rvrit in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dcclaring the inaction of the respondents in acting upon the petitioner's reprt:sr.ntations and releasing the compensation amount to thc petitioncr arnd also restraining the 4tt respondent from making any further constructions on the property, as illegal, contrary to law and irr violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and in rriolation of Sections 636 and 452 and Chapter-Xll of GHMC Act ancl conscquently direct the respondent' Nos.1 to 3 to / ,/ 2 remove the illegal constructions made upon the petitioner's property ar-rd pass orc{crs as it decm it ;rrop-rg'rrnd necessary.

2. 'f re brief facts of the case al'e that, thc l.t wr:it petitioner is the absolutr: o\\/ner and possessor o[ land to an t'xtc:nt of 1500 square yards irr Sy.No.493 situated at Mettuguda Vltrir^r Road, Secunderabad and out of the said land, au exterrt clf 1014 sr[uc'u'c yards was solcl to one V.Y.Bhaskar Rao under the registered salc deecl and to an extent of 486 square yards is held by the writ petitior-rer. The Greater I ll,derabad Municipal Corporatiorr (GI{N{C) l'ras undertook road widening frorn Sangeeth Jttnction Lo Mettugucla, Secunclerabad and land to arr extent of 230 square yards allegec{ to have been acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for roa<l widening and have not praid the conlpensation till date

3. It is also averred that the resp'rondent No.4 being Ex-Corporator has encroached a part of the saict land and raised cortstrur:tions and corlsequent upon thc deatl"r of resporrdent No.4, his Legal Representatives - Itespondent Nos.5 to 8 were brought on record. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner has instituted the suitr; against thc' responderrt No.-t Lrcforut thct cclmpetent Court of t &. \ \ :n 3 law and the same were pending adjudication before the Hon,ble High Court and the instant w,rit petition is filecl for consideration of her representation seekirrg payrnent of compensation for the land to an extent of 230 square vards, r,vhich alleged to have been acquired bv the respondent Nos.-l to 3 hercin for roac-l widening.

4. Further, respondent Nos.l to 3 herein filed a detailed counter- affidavit contending that the house of the writ petitioner bearing No.12-8-423/'10 vr,'as not includeti in the tist of proprerties, which was acquired for road widening from Sangeeth to Mettuguda junction, secunderabad and the house bearing Nos.12-8-422/4/1and 12-g- 423/70 was owned hy Mr. Ac'lvaiah ancl rhe H.No.1z-g-424/ L was owned by Mr. Y.V.tshaskar Rao, which were inctuded along with other affected propcrties and thereafter, a letter was addressed by the Assistant city l)lanner, GHN,IC (old Circiel-7) to the special Deputy Collector to initiate land acquisition proceedings and in the list of properties, the H.No.12-B-4zz/4/1 is not included and accordingly, draft notice uncler Section 4(1) notification was issued by the then District Collector on 27.77.2007 for including list of 22 effected properties for the *rad widening and the list of properties 4 i.e., hcuse bearing No.12-8-4zg/10 rvas shown to be ownecl and possesr;ecl by Advaiah to arr extent of 96.52 square rnete.rs <tr 715.47 srlLl.tre t'artls crnr{ [rcrusc L'rcar.irrg \o.12-S-+2+,/-l rr..rs shorr.rr to Lrc orvrred ancl possessed by Y.v.Bhaskar to an exterrt of 777.37 square nrcters or 922.79 square yards. It was stated that the enquiry under Sec-tiorr 5(A) of the Act was corrdu<:ted ernc[ consequerrt upon l,r,hich the anrount of Rs.28,07,760/- uide cl-reque No.L-031331 cjated

13.02.2008 n'as paid to the 4th respondent torr,'ards cornpensatiop, wlrcre- t,he I'{ouse Nos.l2-8-422/4/'l ancl r2-s-423/10 are rnentiolec{ arrd th,31s is also correction i.e., rounding off IJ.No.l2-g-423/7, which iu fact is notified in the rrotification. lt was contended that the wiit petitioner was ttot clear in r:espect of the house nurnbers and extent of larrd acquired by the GHMC and as there are disputerl questions of facts and title, the writ petitioner, instead of working out her remedies before the competent Clivil Court, l-ras filecl the instant rvrit petition and is not nraintainable.

5. [nsofar as the construction made tr]z the 4rr, respondent, it was stated that there was no construction actirrity being, undertaken by o 5 the 4th respondent, and therefore, the question of issuing notices under the Act does not arise 6 During the pender-rcy of the rt,rit petition, writ petitioner expired and her LRs were brought on record i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 8.

7. Heard Smt. K.Pallavi learned counsel for the petitioners anci Mr. G.Madhusudhan Redcly, learned covernment pleacler for GHMC for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and norle appeared for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and having givcn earrrest consideration to the submissions on both sides, perused the material on record.

8. The instant writ petition is pending consideration before this Court since 2070 and after so man)/ acljourrrmcnts being grantetl, the counter-affidavit has been filed and on 04.08.2014, this Court observed that after much persuasion, the counter-affidavit is filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-l8 stating that the land along with house No.12-B-423/70 was possessed and owned by Advaiah to an extent of 96.52 square meters or 115.4T square yards and that an amount of I{s.28,01,760/- was paid to him (4th respondent) towards compensation, which shows the house bearing Nos.12-g-422/4/7 -T 6 and 12-8-423170. ln view of the above corrtentions irr the counter, the orig;inaI rc'cord was called for bv this Court and also the award passed by thc Land Acquisition Officer. Hor.t,ever, it vrras staterl that thg praytuettt is rnaclc pursuarrt to tl'rc arnarrcl pclsSetl bv the [.arrd ':r > J.i' Acquisitiorr Officer, who recommended payrnent of cornpensation amount on the basis oi sotne credible evidence of ownership of the latrti atrl as thc saici I{.No.l2-S-423/10 allcgccllv orvncti Lrv the n'rit petitioner ancl it l-ras been contended that the amount of compensation, which is liable to be paid to the writ petitioner, vvas paid to thc 4th respondent herein unde.r mistaken of facts without proper verification. [n that view of the matter, this Court, on the said date oi the prosting of the case, has directec{ the Commissioner, Gt IIvIC to cotrduct an enquiry in respect of the lancl acquisition involving the disputed properties and submit a report to this Court

9. Ar; seen fronr the record, vide procec,dirrgs of the Depruty Commissioner, dated 78.07.201,2, the assessment granted in favour of the 4th respondent herein by allotting prernises bearing No.12-8- 423/10, Mettuguda, Secundcrbad, was cancelled based ol1 the ownership documents submitted by Smt. Ch.Sarojini Devi, writ n 7 petitioner herein, and that the Commissioner has conducted an enquiry by giving proper opportunity to all the parties at page No.3 of the said report, it was categorically statecl that the writ petitioner - Chokkarapu sarojini Devi is the owner of 1500 square yards in sy.No.793 situated at Mettuguda, and out of which, she sold away l014 square' yarc'ls to Y.V.Bhaskar, leaving an extent of 4g6 square 1'ards of land and at sl.No.l4, at page No,4 of the re,port, the name of 4tl' respondent w,as shown to be owner and possessor of land to an extent of 96.52 square metc.rs or 1t5.47 square varcls and at page No.6 of the said report, it is stated as follows: " I. this view of the matter, it is evident that the Corporation has . acquirecl 115.39 square varcrs of rancl in premiscs No.l2-u-423l10 under private .egotiatio^ and paid compensation to sri. R.Acl'aiah rvithout verifying the clocuments anc{ the wrong payme.t of compensation amounting to Rs.2g,01,260/_ was marle tcl AcJ'aiah witho,t verifying his documents, which are liablc tt-t bt-: rcc<'rvttrecl fronr him ancl shall Lrc ptrid to actual owner i.e. the writ petitio.er - smt. Chokkarapu sarojini Devi.,,

10. It is also stated that disciplinary action will be initiated against the erring ]'ow^ Plan..ing officer for payment of compensation to the 4th respondent, who has not produced any valid document in q-. trI 8 support of his claim in respect of house prernises bearing No.12-B- 4n/14.

11. [iaving pcrused the saicl enquiry report, as the basic grievance of thc ra,rit pc'titioner is, fclr non-consideratiorr of the representations made b',2 her l'or pavrtterrt of conlperlsaticln and as the Comrnissioner by corrducting an enquiry bir themselves came to conclusion that the cornpensatictt't attroutrt irr respect of the lancl of the petitiorler bearilrg Il.No.12-8-423/10 to cur extent ol' .1

15.39 square vards was wrongly paid to the 4tl' respondent ancl has stated that the amount n,ill be paid to the writ pctitioner, who is actual owner of the lancl admeastrring 1 15.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters.

72. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that everr as on todar,, though thcrc lvds cl rerport fileci by the Commissioner, GHMC by conducting enquiry as early on 25.10.2074, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, and the authorities having corne to a conclusic,n that the writ petition is entitled to the compensation of Rs.28,01,',760/- for the land acquired to an extent of land adrneasu.:ing i15.39 square yard ()r 96.52 square meters, the respondents are dutr'-bouncl to paV tfte corlprensation to the r.vrit i\ 9 '*r -{ petitioner forthwith and though the matter has been adjourned from time to tirle, the respondents till date are not paid the saicl cornpensalion, r.r'hich is cr .focia itlegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and also amounts to depriving the legitimate right of the n,rit petitiorrer from enjoying the fruits of her ovvn land. In the cnquirv report submittc,d by the Commissioner, they rvoukl pay the amount to the writ petitiorrer and it was categoricallv stated that they would take appropriate actiorl upon the erring officials for paymerrt of the cornpensation to a wrong person. Be that as it may, the respondents ought to have at Ieast paid the compensation to tlrc vvrit petitioner during the pendency of the wri-t petition to shon, their bttrut fides. ['[owever, they are seeking time from this Court everl to honour their own undertaking in the enquiry report

13. Evidently, as it is clear from the report of the Commissioner, GHMC, tl'rat the land to an extent of 1L5.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters belongs to the writ pet'itioner, which was acquired for the purpose of roacl widening by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the resporrdent Nos.1 to 3 are duty-bound to pay the comperlsation t 10 amount of Rs.29,07,760/_ to the writ petitioners herein even as on the date of filing .f report, but i.steacl kept dociging the payment for no fault ol the writ Fretitiorrers

14. l-herefore, in that vie*, of the matter, in corrsidered opinion of this C<lurt, resporrc..rrt Nos.l tc-l 3 are lerlall,r,Lrounci to pa,\,the compensation of Rs.2U,01,760/_ forthr,r,ith for the Iancl ilcquired from the firsl. writ petitioner to an e.xtent <lf 115.39 square yards or96.52 square ,retcrs v,ithi^ a periocl -[' lrrrt'. nr.rrths frorn the datc, of receipt .f c.pv of this orcler, Lrcsitles [he.r, are also liable to pay the interest accruerj thereupo n @ 6c'1 L-re' ar^^ur, frorn the date of the writ petiLion trr till thc paynrcrrt is rcalizccl. 15' In bhe above stated circurnstances, the resp.ndent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay trre arnount of Rs.28,01,760/ _t.wards the rand to an extent of r15-39 seuc-rre yards or ()6.52squarcr rneters acquired for the road rvidening to the writ petitioners withir-r two months from the date oI receipt of trre cop,v of the orcier @ 6To per arlnum simpre interest on the saicl a,rou^t frorn trre clate <>f fili.g, of enquiry report before this Court on 25.10 .2074 to tirr rearizatio.. However, insofar as the balilnce of lancr trrat *,as alreged to be acquired by the 'd a 11 respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as there is no substantial proof submitted by thc u,rit pctitioners that the balar-rce of land has been acquired by the respondent Nos.'l to 3 l'rerein, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of their qrievance atncl alsc,r in rcspect o[ otlrcr relief sor-rght against the unofficial resporrdcnts arrd ventilate their grievance. ' 76. Accorclinglv,.the writ Petition is partly allowed and c{isposec{ of. 'l'hcre shall lrc rxr orr{cr dS to costs. ;; r.. Pencliqg misccllaneous applications if apy shall stand closed /TRUE COPY// SD/.A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRARG SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Dy. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad Division, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

2. The City Planner, Circle No. 18, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3. The Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to M/s. K. Pallavi, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy (SC FOR GHMC) (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS € HIGH CoURT DATED :2310112026 ORDER WP.No.6i197 of 2010 \ \ I / t rtE SIA Oo g 6 ttB 2o2t (') :x * * PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q +