2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39809
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
Smt.T.Savitri – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
WP 30674/2015
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION NO.30674 of 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in widening the Gajwel-Pragnapur road and interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s property bearing H.No.10-85, 10-86 and 10-87, Gajwel, Medak District on the basis of G.O.Rt.No.301 Transport, Roads & Buildings (R-II) Department dated 10.07.2015 without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri A.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vigneswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted building permission by the respondent No.5 vide R.O.C.No.G1/87/2014 and B.A.No.22/2014, dated 24.06.2014 to construct a building comprising of ground floor and first floor. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained additional permission from the respondent No. 5 to construct a second floor as per R.O.C.No.G1/749/14 and B.A.No.73/2014-15, dated 07.01.2015.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 301 Transport, Roads & Buildings (R-II) Department dated 10.07.2015 for widening of the road from Km 71/0-77/4 to a six-lane road covering the Gajwel-Pragnapur Town limits. On 16.09.2015, without any notice to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have marked the petitioner’s property for demolition and intimated that the property would be demolished to some extent. He further submitted that the demolition is being carried out without prior notice and without following due process as contemplated under law and prayed this Court to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to refrain from demolishing the petitioner’s property without following due process of law.
5. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.39619 of 2015 in W.P.No.30674 of 2015 passed interim order of status-quo in respect of the subject property to be maintained by both the parties and the said order will not preclude the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings basing on the counter submitted that as it is necessary to widen the road, the Engineer-in-Chief has requested the Government to accord administrative sanction for the work of “Widening of Sangareddy-Narsapur-Toopran-Gajwel-Jagdevpur road” and accordingly G.O.Rt.No.301 Transport, Roads & Buildings (R-II) Department dated 10.07.2015 was issued. He further submitted that along with constructions of side drains, Central Media in Gajwel town limits for its development and as per the Roads and Buildings Policy and norms, the drains has to be constructed at the end of the road boundary.
7. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the work is being taken up within the available land of R&B only without taking any Private land and the widening work is taken up within the existing R&B road boundary only. He further submitted that the petitioner’s property is situated within the boundary of R&B road and it was treated as road encroachment and if the respondents wants to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, they will follow due procedure as contemplated under the Land Encroachment Act and take steps for removal of the encroached structures and requested to pass appropriate orders.
8. After hearing both the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner, without following due process of law.
9. On the other hand, the respondent authorities contending that the respondents are not int