##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.9946 of 2013

DATE: 27.04.2026

Between:

Smt.Kanaparthi Sujatha

…Petitioner

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration,

Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…Issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the arbitrary action of the 3rd respondent in laying road in the petitioner’s land to an extent of 285 sq yards of Plot in Sy.No.1016 of Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar Municipal

2 SCR,J WP.No.9946_2013

Corporation, Karimnagar District, covered under Registered Sale Deed No. 944 of 2005 on the file of the Office of the Joint Sub Registrar Office-I at Karimnagar, dt.28.01.2008, without the permission of the petitioner and without initiating the land acquisition proceedings, as illegal and avoid and opposed to Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner by initiating the land acquisition proceedings or alternatively to direct the respondents to provide alternative equivalent site to the petitioner herein or alternatively to remove the road in question from the petitioner

lands and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. B. Srikanth, learned counsel representing Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Siddharth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, for respondent No.3.

Perused the record.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 285 square yards in Plot No.1016 of Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar District, covered by Registered Sale Deed dated 28.01.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 3, without her consent and without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, have laid a road in the subject land, thereby depriving the petitioner of her

valuable right to claim compensation.

3 SCR,J WP.No.9946_2013

4. It is further stated that earlier petitioner filed W.P. No.22584 of 2008 before this Court questioning the action of the respondent-Corporation in interfering with the petitioner’s property without considering the representation, dated 30.09.2008, and the said writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 10.11.2008, directing the respondents not to interfere with the land of the petitioner and if they propose to lay a road or to acquire the land of the petitioner for any public purpose they should follow due procedure under law. However, the present grievance of the petitioner is that despite the earlier order, the road has been laid in the petitioner’s land without payment of compensation or initiation of acquisition

proceedings.

5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry by physical inspection and ascertain whether any road has been laid in the petitioner’s land. If it is found that a road has been laid in the petitioner’s land, the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of appropriate

4 SCR,J WP.No.9946_2013

compensation, if she is found to be entitled for the same, by conducting a proper enquiry and by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

Date: 27.04.2026 ds