IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:18.02.2026 Between:

Sattoor Radhakrishna Goud …Petitioner And The State of Telangana, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and three others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following substantive relief:

“… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in illegally interfering with the house of the petitioner and partly demolishing the structures at bearing H.No.5-4-2/2, Part, Old Palamur Street, Mahabubnagar Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and initiating land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the same for laying/widening the Boothpur road through the land of the petitioner being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to follow the due process of law.”

2. Heard Ms. V.Poornasri, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and possessor of house bearing H.No.5-4-2/2, Part, Old Palamur Street, Mahabubnagar Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, having acquired the same under registered gift settlement deed, bearing document No.5297 of 2018, dated 16.03.2018, executed by his mother-S.Vimala Devi and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, respondent Nos.2 and 3 visited the said property of the petitioner on 11.04.2020 with JCB and started demolishing the said house without issuing any notice and without following due process of law and that at the request of the petitioner, the respondents went back with a warning to come back again by stating that the said property is required for the proposed road widening. She further submitted that if the petitioner’s house property is required for any public purpose or affected in road widening, the respondents have to follow due process as contemplated under law and acquire the same by paying compensation; that the respondents, without following due procedure envisaged under law, have high handedly resorted to demolish the subject property of the petitioner and therefore, aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that this Court vide interim order dated 17.04.2020 directed the respondents not to undertake demolition work of the subject property of the petitioner for a period of eight weeks, without there being acquisition of the said property, and on 12.06.2020, the said interim order was extended until further orders.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings submitted that the respondents would follow due process of law if the subject property of the petitioner is required for road widening and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner except in accordance with the procedure envisaged under law. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from acquiring the subject property of the petitioner if the same is required for any public purpose or is affected in