IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDEABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.19943 of 2015 DATE : 11.12.2025 Between:

G. Venkatesham …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others …Respondents

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in allowing the construction of compound wall in between H.No.24/78 and 24/70, plot No.98 and 99, Kakatiya Nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri D.L. Pandu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the president of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Ramachandrapuram with Regn.No.TG 821 and petitioner’s society purchased land admeasuring Ac.8-00 gts in Sy.No.196, situated at Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal, Medak District under a registered sale deed No.693 of 1975, dated 20.05.1975; that the said land was developed and layout plan was also approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide L.P.No.39 of 75; that an extent of 500 square yards has been earmarked for construction of shopping complex for the benefit of members of society, however, the same was being encroached upon by the respondent corporation and a compound wall was being constructed around the said land. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.06.2015, to respondent No.3, to stay the construction of compound wall, but as there is no response, one more representation was submitted on 29.06.2015 to respondent No.3, but, respondent No.3 did not take any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 by referring to the counter submitted that respondent corporation has received complaints during prajavani and other public grievance meetings of the residents of locality to provide sports place for the benefit of occupants and the Additional Commissioner, GHMC inspected the layout area and taken up construction of compound wall around the open space and completed the same. He further submitted that compound wall was constructed only to safeguard the said open space and that the allegation made by the petitioner that the said land was encroached is factually incorrect and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and taking into consideration the averments made in the counter that compound wall was constructed only to safeguard the open area forming part of layout vide L.P.No.39/75, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J DATE: 11.12.2025 ssy HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.19943 of 2015 DATE: 11.12.2025 ssy