IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Between:

Mohd. Mir Laiq Ali, S/o Mir Iqbal Ali … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and two others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.11.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY % 06.11.2025 Between:

# Mohd. Mir Laiq Ali, S/o Mir Iqbal Ali .... Petitioner And:

$ The State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and two others.

....Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Surendra Desai ^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy ? Cases Referred:

1. 2001 (2) ALT 662 (FB)

2. Order dated 20.01.2015 in WP.No.37983 of 2014

3. (2003) 2 SCC 111

4. (2022) 5 AIR Bom R 803 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner to an extent of 126.25 square meters in Plot No.135, situated at Masid Banda in Sy.No.192 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.RW/TPS/Cir-XI/GHMC/2012, dated 01.06.2013, of respondent No.3, without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the L.A.Act’) read with A.P. Amendment Act, 2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired by initiating proceedings under the L.A. Act.

2. Heard Sri Suderndra Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that he is the owner and occupier of residential Plot admeasuring 550 square yards bearing Nos.128 and 135, situated in Sy.No.192 (Masid Banda) of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from one Kodicherla Mallesha under registered sale deed, dated 25.07.1991. While so, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 01.06.2013, to the petitioner stating that in the proposed road widening from HCU Bus stop to Botanical gardens via Masjeed Banda, the plot of the petitioner to an extent of 112.8 square meters would be affected, for which, he would be given concessions as prescribed in GO.Ms.No.279, Municipal Administration, dated 01.04.2008. That the petitioner, having found that the concessions given as per the said GO are not beneficial to him, got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2013 calling upon the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquiring his land said to be affected in road widening. But, as there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner again got issued another notice dated 13.01.2014, however, there was no response from the respondents. It is further averred that on 22.02.2014, the petitioner found some digging mark and cementing work in his land and therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition challenging the action of the respondents in encroaching his land without following due process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and a part of his land is said to be affected in road widening. He further submitted that petitioner cannot be forced or compelled to accept for acquisition of his property under the guise of a Government Order, without paying compensation to him as per the