IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 10147 OF 2026

01.05.2026 Between:

M. Sukanya ….. Petitioner And The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Heard Sri M. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 3, Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of Respondent No. 6.

2. Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Plot No. 190, admeasuring 528 square yards, forming part of land admeasuring Acs. 70-00 in Survey No. 1007 situated at Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having acquired the same from Bhagyanagar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited by virtue of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1441 of 2010, dated 31.03.2010. The Society had originally acquired the land in Survey No. 1007 through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 2548 of 1996, dated 15.04.1996, and subsequently developed the said land into residential plots by obtaining a layout from the then Gram Panchayat.

2.1. The grievance of Petitioner is that the subject property on which the petrol pump is being established by Respondents 4 and 5, described as Survey No. 1002 in the Application and permissions, actually obstructs a 40 feet wide public road forming part of the layout of the Society in Survey No. 1007. Petitioner contends that construction of petrol pump will block the road access of plot holders of the said Society, thereby affecting their right of ingress and egress. It is contended, the Letter of Intent issued by IOCL is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, as the applicant deliberately described the survey number of the proposed outlet as Survey No. 1002 instead of the actual Survey No. 1007, and that the Application was supported by incorrect and fabricated documents. On this basis, Petitioner contends that Letter of Intent and all consequential permissions are void ab initio.

2.2. Petitioner also contends that GHMC granted building permission without verifying whether the subject property falls on the road as per the approved layout, and thereby acted in collusion with the other respondents and without application of mind. It is stated, police refused to register a case against the unofficial respondents despite complaints of encroachment, and that the police appear to be acting in collusion with them. Finally, petitioner states that the impugned actions are violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution.

3. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that Respondent No. 4 - NVN Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is the absolute owner of the land in Survey No. 1002, admeasuring Acs. 3-35 Guntas of Kukatpally Village and Mandal. The original pattadar of this land was one Intivenka Balaiah, and after his demise, his four sons were recorded in the revenue records. Proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (ULC Act) were initiated, and a notice under Section 8(1) of the said Act was issued. As no objections were received, the Competent Authority passed final orders under Section 8(4) declaring the land as ‘surplus’. Thereafter, under G.O. Ms. No. 456 issued by the Government, an opportunity was given to the owners to get the surplus land exempted by paying the requisite regularisation charges. As the original owners did not have the necessary funds, they entered into an arrangement with Respondent No. 4 which paid Rs. 9,27,49,903/- towards regularisation charges on behalf of the owners. The Government thereafter, issued a Gazette Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act dated 01.04.2006 and subsequently, a