ORDER

Heard Ms.K.V.L.Priyadarshini, learned counsel representing Sri Anvesh Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.Shazia Parveen, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department appearing for respondent No.1; Ms.V.Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4; Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ of mandamus, declaring Rule 4(f) of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26-02-2002 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires to the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 also violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondent Nos 4 to 5 to Sanction of Revised Layout Permission to the petitioner's property without insisting to surrender 10 Mtrs width of land for Service Road, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

Factual background (in brief)

3. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2-20 Gts situated in Sy.No.342/E/1/1/1 of Polampalli Village, Bheemaram Mandal, Mancherial District (for short “subject land”). With an intention to develop the subject land into a residential layout and to secure necessary statutory approvals, the petitioner submitted an application seeking layout permission vide Application Unique ID No.10820/805 dated 07.01.2026 to respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the competent authorities under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short, ‘2018 Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The said application was required to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the 2018 Act, read with G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 26.02.2002, which governs grant of layout approvals within Gram Panchayat limits.

5. The layout proposal submitted by the petitioner was in strict conformity with the requirements prescribed under Rules 4(a) to 4(e) of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002. In compliance therewith, the petitioner earmarked 26.86% of the total extent of land for formation of internal roads and 10.04% of the total area towards open spaces and amenities. However, while processing the application, the competent authority invoked Rule 4(f) of G.O.Ms.No.67 and insisted upon the petitioner providing a service road of a minimum width of 10 meters as a condition precedent for grant of final layout approval, on the ground that the subject land abuts a National Highway which was less than 60’ in width.

6. The petitioner submits that in view of the insistence of the authorities and in order to avoid rejection of the application, she was constrained to earmark and surrender an additional extent of 1330.40 Sq Yds out of her private land towards the proposed service road and to obtain Draft Technical Layout Permission bearing DTLP No.01/2026/DCTPO/MNCL/LAYOUT dated 07.01.2026. The said surrender, according to the petitioner, was made under compulsion and without prejudice to her legal rights and contentions.

7. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that neither the 2018 Act nor any parent legislation authorizes compulsory surrender of private land for formation of a service road without acquisition and payment of compensation. According to the petitioner, Rule 4(f) of G.O.Ms.No.67, insofar as it mandates surrender of land for service roads as a pre-condition for layout approval, travels beyond the scope of the parent statute and operates arbitrarily and unreasonably.

8. Aggrieved thereby, and contending that Rule 4(f) of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the 2018 Act, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the validity of the said Rule and the consequential action