HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29446 and 29448 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER : (ORAL)

Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 whereby they were requested to give consent letter under Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’) and hand over part of their property in Plot No.1056/I and Plot No.1355-E, respectively, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, affected in the proposed road widening.

3. Heard Mr. C.V.Narsimham, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material on record.

4. The facts in W.P. No.29446 of 2025, being the lead case, are set out as under:

5. The petitioner is the owner of the Plot No.1056/I, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society under registered sale deed dated 10.09.1991. The petitioner constructed house about two (2) decades ago in 2005 by obtaining building permission and since then, she had been residing in the subject property. It is stated that in 2017, notice under Section 146 of the GHMC Act dated 18.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter and handover the part of the subject property for the purpose of widening the existing Road No.45 i.e. from 80 feet to 120 feet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.28539 of 2018 challenging the said notice and order dated 13.08.2018 was passed directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law. Subsequently, the petitioner received notice under Section 15(1) of the Act 2013 read with Rule 21 of the rules made there under dated 27.09.2019 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad, to which she submitted her objections. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the respondent authorities and proceedings were rescinded by virtue of provisions under Section 19(7) of the Act 2013 since the time limit of twelve (12) months had elapsed. While so, the petitioner received another notice under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2013 read with Rule 21 dated 01.09.2025 from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, which was served on the petitioner on 12.09.2025.

6. It is alleged that on 23.09.2025, the officials of GHMC visited the house of the petitioner and demanded her to produce ownership documents, link documents, building permission etc., failing which the structures existing on the road affection portion will be treated as encroachments upon the public road. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in threatening the petitioner to demolish her house in the subject property is illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the claim of the respondent authorities is self-contradictory. Having initiated the land acquisition proceedings and having issued notice under Section 15(1) of the Act 2013, the impugned notice, which is a threatening tactic, was issued to the petitioner pressurizing her to surrender the road affected area of her property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the impugned letter dated 20.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to give consent letter and handover the part of the subject property for the purpose of road widening. The petitioner was informed that she can avail the benefit of TDR (Transferable Development Rights) instead of money compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the subject property of the petitioner will be acquired by following