Telangana High Court
WP/36846/2014 of J.Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, on 11 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRURRY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 36846 OF 2014 Between 1. J.Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy,
[ 348s I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRURRY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 36846 OF 2014
Between
1. J.Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.H.No.9-7-13013, Maruthi Nagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District.
2. K.S.N.Vishnu, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.
H. No. 1 7 -1 -382N I 1 /1 9, Vishalinagar, Hyderabad.
3. J.Murali, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.
H.No.9-7-7211 11, Maruthi Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
4. K.Madhu Sudhan, S/o. Late Krishna, Aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Balaji Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA&UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Project Director, Outer ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
3. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
4. The Chief Planner, Outer Ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more particutarly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in laying service road through the land of the petitioners and making the land of the petitioners in Survey Nos. 422, 424, 425,426,433 to 435 and 441 admeasuring of Ac. 13-00 Guntas covered by villages Kongara Khurd'A' and 'B' Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, located towards North of the Outer Ring Road/Service road passing through village Kongara Khurd 'A' and 'B' as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (t Xg) and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents t,l permit the petitioners to lay a 40" wide road leading to the petitioners land without rlisturbing or damaging the existing service road, as per petitioners representatiorr dated 1 8-1 1 -2O1 4.
l.A. NO: 1
2014(WPMP. NO:461 11 0F 20141
Petition ,lnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith dispose of petitioners' representatiorl dated 18-11-2014
requesting thr: respondents to permit the petitioners to lay a 40" road in the petitioners land in Sy. Nos. 422, 424, 42s, 426, 433, 434,435 and 441, Situated at Kongara Khurd'A' and 'B', Maheshwaram Manda!, Ranga Reddy District, without disturbing or damaging the existing Service Road infront of the subject land pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI
counse.l for the Respondent No.l: GP FoR McpL ADMN & URBAN DEv counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRIV.NARASTMHA GouD, SC FOR HMDA
The Court made the following: ORDER
:' : ;:':, :
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OT TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
of
DATE,: LL.O2.2O26
Between:
J. Janardhan Reddy & others
.Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
R"p., by its Principal Secretar5r,
MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking tl".e following relief:- "...to issue an appropriate writ more partbularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in laying serttice road through the land of the petitioners and making theland of the petttioners tn Surtey Nos-422,424,425,426,433 t<t 435 and 441 admeasuirng of Ac.l3-00 Guntas covered by viltages Kongara Khurd ,A' & 'B' Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, located towards North of the Outer Ring Road/Service road passing through vtllage Kongara Khurd 'A' & 'B' as being arbitrory, illegat and violative of Artcles 14, 19 (I)(9,) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to lay a 40,, wide road leading to the petitioners land without disturbing or domaging the existing service road, as per pettttoners' representation dated I8.l 1.2014 and to pass such other order or orders ..."
' *p.No.J6846 -2014 SC&J
2. Heard Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petiticners and Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the feCOf'l.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Stancting counsel for HMDA would contend that he has filed a count:er stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.47O MAUD (l), Dept, dated 09.07.2008, all lands abutting the oRR will not be allowt:d to have access on to the service road of the oRR., as woulc[ be detrimental to the commuters, who pass throughout the outer ring road. It is also contended that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no power to grant such access and trrey are bound by the (iovernment orders issued from time to time, and therelbre, the representation made by the petitioners could not be considered by the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
[n view of the above submission, ar}d since the appropriate authority to look into the grievance of the petitic'ner is the lst respondent-Government, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before respondent No.1". by en<:losing all the relevant documents, stating all the facts so , a -.?-''-
Wp.No 36846 _20t4 as to show that totar access is blocked to the said land belonging to the petitioners for the enjoyment the s€une. on such representation being made, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall consider the s€une on merits by passing appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt such representation.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shalr stand closed n n //TRUE COPY/. sD/- c. DEEPTKA I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I -<
SECTION OFFICER To, BSR GJP
1. The Principal Secretary, MA and UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
2. The Project Director, Outer ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
3. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
4. The Chief Planner, Outer Ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
5. One CC to SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies d-
I \ ./ HIGH COURT DATED: 1110212026
ORDER
WP.No.36846 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT GOSTS S t) 1 I ilAR 2S2[ * * $n-