I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.21053 of 2012 DATE: 10.02.2026 Between:

Sri Mohd. Ajaz Adil …Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents

O R D E R:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Sri S.Vivek, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Balu Didekula, learned counsel representing Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not paying the compensation to the petitioner’s dwelling House bearing No.18-7-205/C/2/9/1, Jahangir Nagar, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules and Regulations of A.P. Land Acquisition Act, and consequently direct the respondents to release the compensation to the petitioner forthwith from the date of acquisition with interest as permissible and pass orders.”

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, appearing for respondent No.1, filed counter affidavit stating that no land acquisition was initiated over the petitioner’s house but, however the land of the petitioner has been acquired for road widening. It is further stated that all the affected persons in the road widening project, including owners of properties in the old city within Circles I, II and part of IV under the jurisdiction of QQSUDA, are to be paid structural compensation. The same was confirmed by the MCH Committee in its 16^th meeting held on 18.08.2006, and requested the Government to make payments for road widening works in accordance with the relevant Government orders. It is also clarified that some land of the affected persons was acquired by the respondents for road widening and as the premises of the petitioner is also acquired the appropriate orders would be passed by the GHMC respondent No.3 as the acquisition is made for road widening and the GHMC is the appropriate authority.

4. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 to enquire into the matter and examine the relevant records. If it is found that the petitioner’s land as well as house property is acquired for road widening purposes, appropriate compensation shall be paid in accordance with the law. If the petitioner is not entitled to any payment, the respondents may reject the claim by passing appropriate orders and communicating the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

___________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 10.02.2026 Dsu