IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.Nos.35397 and 35575 of 2013 Dt.30.03.2026 WP.No.35397 of 2013 Between:

Sri Lakshminagar Residents’ Welfare Association and another.

…. Petitioners and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-XI, Serilingampalli Mandal, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampalli, Hyderabad, and five others. …Respondents WP.No.35397 of 2013 Between:

Sri B.Syam Sunder and four others.

…. Petitioners and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-XI, Serilingampalli Mandal, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampalli, Hyderabad, and five others. …Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

1. Since the lis involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for analogous hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 35575 of 2013 and 35397 of 2013 is to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in constructing a compound wall and establishing a new graveyard in the land in Survey No.28, situated at Miyapur, Serilingampalli Mandal, as earmarked by respondent Nos.3 and 4, which includes the residential houses of the petitioners in W.P.No.35575 of 2013 and adjoining the 1^st petitioner’s residential colony and the 2^nd second petitioner–school in W.P.No.35397 of 2013, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents restraining from undertaking any construction of a new graveyard on the subject land.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, and Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, in both the Writ Petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions contends that the construction of a new graveyard in Survey No.28, adjacent to the locality of Lakshmi Nagar in Miyapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, would be detrimental to the residents of the colony and adversely impact the mental well-being of schoolchildren, thereby affecting their overall health, and thus sought for a direction to the respondents not to make construction of new grave yard in the subject locality.

5. Per contra, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, placing reliance on the inspection note, dt.12.12.2013, placed before this Court, under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner of the second 2^nd respondent, contended that upon inspection it was found that the land in Survey No.28 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, admeasuring Ac. 4.03 guntas, is an open land and was already containing graves of about 35 Hindus and 11 Christians located at different places. He further contended that the GHMC has undertaken construction of a compound wall strictly in accordance with the location sketch plan to prevent encroachments, and not for creation of a new graveyard as alleged by the petitioners. It was further stated that a compound wall up to a height of 5 feet has already been constructed along the roadside, while the work on other sides is under progress.

6. Further, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the learned Standing counsel for HUDA, that the apprehension of the petitioners regarding construction of a new graveyard is wholly misconceived, as the subject land has been in use as a burial ground for several years without any objection or adverse impact on the surrounding residents, and that the GHMC authorities are constructing a compound wall to the existing grave yard as a regulatory and protective measure, to prevent encroachment, and that it will also equally protect the rights and interest of the residents of the adjacent colony from expansion of the existing grave yard beyond its established limits.

7. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and pe