HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31722 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

Heard Mr. A.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.3 and 6; and perused the material on record.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that its objections dated 07.06.2025 to the notice No.C/313/2024 dated 07.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4 under Section 15(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act 2013’) in connection with acquisition of the subject property bearing H.No.2-1-57/A over Plot Nos.39 and 40 in Survey No.648, situated at Uppal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District for the purpose of widening of the road leading from Habsiguda to Nagole Inner Road via Uppal Junction have not been objectionably considered and the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Women’s Education Trust and another v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 8 SCC 99 which reads as under:

“...

5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons.

...”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the measurements of the subject property have not been taken from the road median. Further, the existing road is of 200 feet and does not require any widening; the Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited (HMRL) occupied portion of the road and had been using it for the purpose of parking. That several objections have been submitted by the petitioner, however, the same have been disposed of mechanically stating that the present acquisition is approved under SRDP (Strategic Road Development Plan) and RDP (Road Development Plan) by the Commissioner, GHMC which is in the interest of the general public. It is submitted that there is violation of statutory mandate under Section 15 of the Act 2013, as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that acquisition is for road widening and it is in the interest of the public in general. Further, there is approval under SRDP and RDP by the Commissioner, GHMC for the present acquisition, as such, the objections of the petitioner have been rejected. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that several other properties on the road leading from Habsiguda to Nagole Inner Ring Road via Uppal Junction have been acquired and considering the objections only of the petitioner would be a futile exercise. Several owners of the properties on the same road alignment have not objected for acquisition. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the road widening is in the interest of general public and the same is not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, no relief may be passed in this writ petition.

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the measurements of the subject property have not been properly taken from the road median and that the existing road is of 200 feet and does not require road widening, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh representation/objections within 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 orders by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned/interested persons, in accordance with law within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to cost