IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10^th February, 2026 Between:

Prajay Gulmohar Gated Community Welfare Society, (Reg. No.1192/2013) Rep. by its Secretary, Mr.P.Sivaiah, S/o.P.Venkateswarlu, aged about 63 years, R/o.9-87 A/Prajay Gulmohar / Kuntloor Road, Peddamberpet, R.R. District ...Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 10 others.

...Respondents

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 4^th and 5^th respondents to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner society in pursuant of the Notice in Lr.Roc.No.G1/23/2014 dated 16.12.2014, without passing any orders, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4^th and 5^th respondents not to demolish the compound wall of the Petitioner’s Gated Community colony...”

2. Heard Mr.Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Ram Chandra Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority representing respondent No.2 and Mr.Midde Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Peddamberpet, Ibrahimpatnam, Jaipally and Meerpet Municipalities representing respondent No.4 and Mr. K.Jamali, learned counsel for respondent No.11. Perused the record.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the subject property forms part of a duly approved gated community layout known as “Prajay Gulmohar,” developed pursuant to valid layout approval, wherein approximately 260 residential units along with internal roads and common amenities have been constructed and sold to third-party purchasers, who are in peaceful possession and enjoyment.

4. It is contended that the entire layout is a self-contained gated community enclosed by a compound wall with a single approved access point, and that the internal roads are private in nature, exclusively meant for the use of the residents, with no existing or recorded right of way in favour of adjoining landowners.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who own adjacent lands, are attempting to unlawfully claim access through the petitioner’s internal roads for the purpose of securing layout approval for their proposed development, despite there being no legal entitlement or historical access.

6. It is contended that, based on a false complaint made by Respondent No.6, the authorities issued a notice to the petitioner, to which detailed explanations were submitted. However, no final order has been passed till date. In the absence of any adjudication, Respondent No.5, in collusion with Respondent Nos.6 and 7, attempted to forcibly demolish a portion of the compound wall to create access.

7. Learned Counsel submits that such interference with the compound wall and internal layout of the gated community is illegal and impermissible, and would seriously prejudice the rights, safety, and security of the residents. It is therefore contended that the impugned action of the official respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and warrants interference by this Court.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 submitted that the layout in question is an open layout, approved through official proceedings and not a gated community, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226. The petitioner has illegally constructed a compound wall and installed a gate, blocking access roads meant for neighboring landowners, including Respondent No.6, and the general public, without permis