THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 30441 of 2021

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner of existing building bearing House No.4-91(old), Nos.4-15, 4-16, 4-17 (new) of Yedula Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District, having acquired the same on 22.05.1987 for valid consideration; that upon purchasing the same, said property having mutated on to her name and being assessed to property tax since then.

3. Petitioner contends that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, in the name of giving effect to the G.O.Rt.No.130, TR & B (R.II) Dept., dt.27.11.2014, whereby administrative sanction orders were issued for widening single roads to double lane roads in all Assembly Constituencies, including the road from Nagarkurnool to Gopalpet (via) Revally from k.m. 0/0 to 36/4 in Mahaboobnagar District, have highhandedly trespassed into her property on the early hours of

22.11.2021 and demolished the steps on the front side of the petitioner’s house/mulgies including 3 feet stair case, without acquiring the said land and without paying any compensation or by following due procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Petitioner further contends that if the property of the petitioner is required for public purposes, the respondents-authorities owe a duty to initiate acquisition proceedings by determining and paying compensation, and only thereafter can take up the work of laying road by demolishing the petitioner’s property.

5. Petitioner further contends that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, without following the due process of law, at the instance and pressure of local Sarpanch, have resorted to the aforesaid illegal and unauthorized act of demolition of the stair case of the petitioner’s house/mulgies and also the front steps of the shops/mulgies on the sole ground of the petitioner’s husband is inimical towards them and that there is no necessity to widen the existing road.

6. It is also contended by the petitioner that on the 3^rd and 4^th respondents resorting to the aforesaid act of demolishing the petitioner’s house and steps without following due process of law, it had approached the District Collector by submitting a representation; that inspite of the petitioner approaching the 2^nd respondent and submitting the representation, the same did not yield any result; and thus, the aforesaid acts of the respondents are in clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India depriving the petitioner of her property.

7. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 are filed. The 3^rd respondent by the counter affidavit filed claims that the subject matter of the road is under the control of R & B Department and that the Government had accorded administrative sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.130, under Corenet Plan for the work of widening single lane road to double lane from Nagarkurnool to Gopalpet via Revally from km 0/0 to 36/4 in old Mahaboobnagar District, as the road is busy with commercial vehicles and the public of nearby villages having requested for such widening.

8. By the counter affidavit it is further contended by the 3rd respondent that the 4^th respondent is the authority in local body area which has to handover the required area for the 3^rd respondent authority to commence road widening work.

9. By the counter affidavit, the 3^rd respondent had claimed that it is no way concerned with the demolition of the petitioner’s house/mulgies on 22.11.2024 as claimed in the writ petition.

10. By the counter aff