IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.12785 OF 2015 DATE: 28.01.2026 Between:

M.Baby Sarojini w/o. late M.Sambasiva Rao, R/o.Flat No.307, Teja Heights, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-23.

…. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration Department, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

…. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Y.Prabhuvu, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. T.Kanya Kumari, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed declaring the action of respondent No.2 in constructing the compound wall closing the petitioner’s Plot Nos.17 and 18 on the Eastern side to a length of 36 ft + 36 ft each plot, totaling 72 ft. as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove such compound wall to get access

30 ft. road to their plot Nos.17 and 18.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a compound wall has been constructed, which obstructs the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s plot Nos.17 and 18, thereby it amounts to interfering with the enjoyment of the said plots.

4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, contending that the allegations of the petitioner made in the affidavit are false and that the respondent No.2 had constructed the said compound wall only to the boundaries of public park and had not encroached into the plots of the petitioner and as per HUDA approved layout, there are no such plot Nos.17 and 18 in the final approved layout.

5. In that view of the matter, as the basic grievance of the writ petitioner is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot Nos.17 and 18 in layout L.P.No.9753/MP.2/HUDA/91/1991 to an extent of 400 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1994 and the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the 2^nd respondent had constructed a compound wall around the park only, which is not covering any plot. Further, as it is also contended by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that there are no such plot Nos.17 and 18 in the final approved layout and per contra, learned counsel for petitioner asserts that in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner, the respondents constructed a compound wall, thereby closing access to the petitioner plot Nos.17 and 18, and now they deposing falsely.

6. In that view of the matter, it would suffice, to meet the ends of justice, to direct the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and file all the required documents along with layout evidencing physical existence of plot Nos.17 and 18 alleged to have owned by her.

7. In the light of the above, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner along with documents and conduct an enquiry, physically conducting an inspection, by following due process of law, if it is found the plots are in existence as per the layout and that compound wall is constructed obstructing access to the petitioner’s plots, the respondents shall remove the compound wall forthwith. If the 2nd respondent comes to a conclusion that the said plots are fictitious, he may pass a reasoned order by communicating the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of representation filed by the writ petitioner.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J Date: 28.01.2026 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.12785 OF 2015 Date:28.01.2026 kk