JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao appears for the appellant.

Ms. V.Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, appears for respondents No.1 and 3.

Learned counsel Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, appears for respondent No.2.

Sri Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appears for respondents No.4 and 5.

Learned counsel Sri G.V.Ramana Murthy appears for respondent No.6 through video conferencing.

Learned counsel Sri K.Jamali appears for respondent No.11 in the writ petition.

2. A notice by the Nagar Panchayat Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District, dated 16.12.2014, asking the President of M/s. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Limited, Kuntloor, to submit a reply within three days as to why encroachment of roads be not removed, was made subject matter of W.P.No.6326 of 2015. The interim order of status quo remained till the impugned judgment was passed on 10.02.2026, inter alia, directing as under:

“10. This Court initially granted a status quo in this matter. Upon reviewing the counter-affidavit and the petitioner’s layout plan, it is found that the area is not a gated community, and all the roads of the layout have been handed over to and shall be maintained by the Municipality, making them accessible to neighbouring layouts.

11. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner should still be given an opportunity to be heard before passing any final orders, and the official respondents are directed to follow the due process of law. There is no order as to costs.”

Being aggrieved, the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, has preferred this appeal.

3. Respondents No.4 and 5 have been succeeded by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), who have to act upon the aforesaid notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, counter affidavits have been filed by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), GHMC, respondent No.6 and respondent No.11 therein. The dispute raised before the learned writ court was whether the subject property forms part of the duly approved gated community layout or not. Construction of a road in a layout which is not a gated community cannot be allowed was the stand of respondents No.2 and 4. This issue whether the layout was a gated community or not should have to be left to be decided by the appropriate authority which issued the notice based upon the materials placed before him. However, since pleadings had been completed and stand of the respondents had also been brought on record, the learned writ court went on to observe at paragraph 10 that the area is not a gated community and all the roads of the layout have been handed over and shall be maintained by the Municipality making them accessible to the neighbouring layouts. The learned writ court dismissed the writ petition, however, allowing the official respondents to follow due process of law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the final orders, in effect, to take a decision on the impugned notice.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the observations made at paragraph 10 are likely to influence the decision to be taken by the appropriate authority, which is now GHMC. Therefore, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the attendant material facts as are placed from the record.

6. In the compass of the facts noted above, since the challenge was only to a notice which threatened demolition of the boundary wall on the layout whether gated community or not, and the learned writ court left it open to the official respondents to follow due process of law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing final orders, the observation