THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.34967 of 2025

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“...issue a writ order or direction more particularly one a writ

in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 threat of demolition of petitioner’s house property H.No.1-107, situated at Rudraram Village and Grampanchayat, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without any notice and without any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violate of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the rules and consequentially direct the respondent Nos.3 & 4 not to demolish

his house property...”

2. Heard Sri Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri

K.Muralidhar Reddy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner’s husband, Sri Kotla Malla Reddy, was the absolute owner of the residential house bearing H.No.1-107, situated at Rudraram Village and Gram Panchayat, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having inherited the same. Upon his demise, the petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of the property and the Gram Panchayat

duly mutated it in her name. In 2023, the Registrar-cum-Land Acquisition-cum-Resettlement Authority, Hyderabad, issued general notices to the villagers regarding ongoing acquisition proceedings, in which respondent No.3 is a party. Those proceedings are still pending and respondent No.3 has not been appearing before the authority. Despite this, respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, on 14- 11-2025 at about 7:00 PM, arrived at the petitioner’s property without notice, attempted to remove the gate and threatened demolition of the house. The petitioner and other villagers resisted these acts, after which respondent No.4 left the premises.

(a) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a widow, a daily-wage labourer and the sole breadwinner for her minor child and aged mother. The subject house is their only shelter and any demolition would render the family homeless and destitute. The petitioner has been regularly paying property tax to the Gram Panchayat, Rudraram along with all utility charges, without default.

(b) It is further submitted that respondent No.4’s attempt to demolish the house for an alleged road-widening programme, without issuing any notice, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and without providing compensation, settlement, or rehabilitation, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The respondents, acting on extraneous considerations, have sought to dispossess the petitioner without following due process, thereby infringing her fundamental right to life and shelter. The petitioner accordingly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to protect her lawful possession and restrain respondents No.3 and 4 from demolishing or interfering with her house property.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioner’s allegations are misconceived. It is stated that the official respondents have not attempted to demolish the petitioner’s structure unlawfully. Respondent No.4 visited the locality only for routine inspection connected with a proposed road-widening project undertaken for public purpose. Prior to such inspection, a notice was duly issued to the petitioner informing her of the preliminary survey and proposed public works. Hence, the allegation of action “without notice” is denied. It is further submitted that any acquisition, if required, will be undertaken strictly in accordance with law, following due process, including statutory notices, enquiry, compensation and rehabilitation as mandated. The petitioner’s apprehension of imminent demolition is therefo