##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

W.P.No.2356 of 2015

Date 05.05.2026

Between:

Gousia Begum

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri K. Siddharth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for Karimnagar Municipality for respondent No.2.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the

following relief :-

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in

seeking to demolish the portion of the house bearing

2

Nos.6-6-926 and 6-6-933, situated at Shivaji Nagar,

Karimnagar, and acquiring the land for the purpose of

implementation of master plan of 100 feet road from

Mancherial Chowrastha to Apollo Reach Hospital at

Karimnagar, belongs to the petitioner without initiating

any land acquisition proceedings, without paying

compensation to the petitioner and without following

due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and

consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the

portion of petitioners house bearing Nos.6-6-926 and 6-

6-933, situated at Shivaji Nagar, Karimnagar,

Karimnagar District, without paying compensation and

pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case…”

3. The brief facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in

support of the present Writ Petition is that the petitioner is

the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing Nos.6-6-

926 and 6-6-933, situated at Shivaji Nagar, Karimnagar and

has constructed the said houses of ground+two floors after

obtaining valid permissions from the competent authorities.

While so, in order to widen the road from 80 feet to 100 feet

road, the authorities have marked the portion of the

petitioner property, which is getting affected in the said road

widening. The primary contention of the learned counsel for

petitioner is that the respondents-Municipality ought to have

3

issued the notification for Acquisition of the land by

following the due process of law. However, the respondents

have not followed the due process either under the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the

Act, 2013”)or the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (or the

A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965). It is the primary contention of

the petitioner that in order to facilitate some of the corporate

hospitals situated on the other side of the road, respondents

are proceeding with the widening on the one side of the road

in order to help some of the influenced persons. It is also

stated that respondent No.2-Officials without a proper

marking and without any scientific methods have marked

the portion of many prospective land owners. It is contended

that the said action is illegal.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contended that

the procedure has been duly followed and marked the

affected portions of all the buildings along with the

petitioner. It is false to submit that the said road is being

widened to facilitate some of the influenced persons. It is

4

further contended that if the buildings of the petitioner are

being affected, appropriate compensation would be paid by

following the due process as contemplated under law by

conducting a proper enquiry.

5. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed

of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct a due

enquiry and compensate the petitioner to the extent of the

portion of her property being necessary for widening of the

road. The petitioner shall be given a right of opportunity to

place all the documents and also contentions raised in

respect of the enquiry being conducted by the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 and if the property of the petitioner is af