IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:20.01.2026 Between:

Venu Gopal Bhangdia and five others.

…Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, reptd by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and two others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari and to quash the notice bearing No.ORD.No.G-88/GHMC/RC/2014, dated 12.12.2014, issued by respondent No.2 directing removal of the compound/boundary wall on the road portion towards northern side in Prestige Dream Valley Layout, since it is blocking the connectivity from Shivarampally village to Inner Ring Road and to direct the respondents not to demolish or interfere with the compound wall of the gated community of the petitioners namely M/s Prestige Dream Valley Residents Welfare Association, situated in Sy.Nos.92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 106 and 107 of Katedan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, representing M/s Bharadwaj Associates, counsel-on-record for petitioners and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, are that agricultural lands situated in Sy.Nos.92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 106 and 107 of Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, were converted into layout, as per the sanction granted by the then Shivarampally Gram Panchayat in the year 2002- 2004; that the petitioners purchased the plots in the said layout and constructed houses thereon, viz., Plot Nos.47, 67, 76, 7, 45 and 33 and the township is known as ‘Prestige Dream Valley’.

3.1. While the matter stood thus, on the complaint of one S.Kantha Reddy, respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated 02.01.2014 to petitioners’ association stating that they have constructed compound wall on the public road and were called upon to submit the approved layout. In response to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted the layout and denied the allegation of the compound wall blocking the connectivity to Inner Ring Road.

3.2. It is further stated that on 28.10.2014, the demolition squad of the GHMC has carried out the demolition of the compound wall without any statutory notice being served on the petitioners and without taking any decision on the representation given by them. It is further stated that neither in the Zonal development plan nor in the Village map, there is any road connecting Shivarampally Village with Inner Ring Road. Assailing the said demolition, the petitioners filed W.P.No.33513 of 2014 and the same was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 12.11.2014, directing the respondents authorities to restore the compound wall demolished by them within two weeks from the date of the said order and thereafter, it was left open to the respondents to initiate action in accordance with Section 406 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the GHMC Act’); and that in pursuance of the said orders, the respondents have issued the impugned notice, challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners further submitted in spite of orders of this Court directing the respondents to take action under Section 406 of the GHMC Act, the respondents have issued the impugned notice dated 12.12.2014 without granting sufficient time and as such, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that even without recording any findings on the disputed fact about the existence of village road connecting Shivarampally village to the Inner Ring Road, the impugned notice has been issued and hence, the provisions contained in Section 406 of the GHMC Act also becomes inapplicable.

4.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in absence of any evidence about existence of any village