IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.16904 of 2014 DATE: 11.03.2026 Between:

Gurukrupa Nagar Residents Welfare Association, …Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents No.1 to 4 not to allow any constructions to be made in the open space meant for park in the approved lay out in Survey Nos.49 to 53 situated at Taranagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R District and if constructions made, it should be demolished forthwith and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. M. Karthik, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No. 3; and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, for respondent No. 4. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in fact, the approved subject layout was sanctioned vide Lr. No. 637/MP2/HUDA/89 dated 30.03.1990 is situated in Survey Nos.49 to 53 situated at Taranagar Village, Serilingamaplly Mandal, R.R District, it is a final layout consisting of about 28 plots. However, the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are contemplating construction of a temple in the said open place.

4. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the authorities would inspect the subject site and, if it is found that the same forms part of the open space earmarked for a park in the approved layout, and if found any construction is being made by respondent Nos.5 to 7, necessary steps would be taken to protect the same and ensure that the land is utilized only for the said purpose.

5. Having regard to the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to conduct a proper enquiry and determine whether the open place, where the alleged construction is being made by unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 7, falls within the area earmarked for park/amenities in the layout. If it is found that the said land is reserved for a park, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall take necessary steps to preserve and protect the same as a park.

6. If, on the other hand, it is revealed that the said open place is not meant for a park or does not fall within the purview of the layout, it is left open to the parties to approach the appropriate competent Court of law for claiming their rights over the said land.

7. It is also made clear that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall follow due procedure as contemplated under law, by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and affording them an opportunity of hearing before passing any orders.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 11.03.2026 ds THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.16904 of 2014 Date: 11.03.2026 ds