WP/31703/2011 of MD.MEHRAJUDDIN, AND ANOTHER Vs CITY PLANNER, AND 3 OTHERS on 29 January 2026

1. Syed Yaseen Ali, S/o. Syed Yakub Ali, aged about H.No.8-4-550i271/A, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad

2. Gousiya Begum, Wo. Ahmed Muneeruddin, aged about H.No.8-4-550/271l8, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad [ 348s ] 30 years, 48 years,

3. Taheerunissa, W/o. Nazeer Ahmed, aged about 43 years, H. No.8-4-550/271, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad

4. Shareefa Bee, Wo. late Shaik Mohiuddin, aged about 73 years, H.No.8-4-550/27.1/C, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderbbad

5. Zainuddin [/d., S/o. Md. Qamurddin, aged about 48 years, H.No.B-4-550/27111 ,Nalrl Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lr/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretary, Hyderabad The District Collector, Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, 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 order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, Quashing the proceedings notices/issued to the petitioners vide 8/608/2008 dated 19-06-2009 by the 3rd respondent as their premises are not falling under GO MS No.363 dated 21-08-2010, ir violative of Article 21 of constitution of lndia and ttr presidents further direct respondents to lay the road as per the ( 21-O8-201O and plans annexed to it in respect c I without any deviation and violations. l.A. NO: 2OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 19605 oF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the , in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corr direct the respondents to order stay of all further proce petitioners residing on lhe southern side of the existing 2O rt dispossess the petitioners in present to the order dated '1 (i proceeding number 8/608/08 of the 3rd respondent and r plans as per GO MS No 363 dated 21-08-2010 in respect tl1 pending the disposal of the main Writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 8726 oF 2013) Petition under Order 26 rule 9 of CpC praying that i stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the pleased to kindly appoint an ADVOCATE COIMMISSION fcr inquiry report along with report on documents on the RC r PLAN NOV 2007 OF GHIVC and The Revised Devetopmen vide G.O.No. 363 IVA Dated 21-08-2010 cHMC Circte - X (() l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WVMP NO: 4118 OF 2011 'rcu mstances stated . may be pleased to :d ing in respect of 'oad and also not to )6-2009 as made in ro to adhere to the ircle No.X of GHIVC the circumstances ligh Court may be calling the physical D DEVELOPMENT Plan (Master Plan) I Circle V). lVlunicipal Corl rration, Tank Bund, ..PETITIONER about 30 years, illegal improper and established jud icial O tr/S Nc.363 dated Circle X of GHA/C Between: The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Hyderabad. AND

Syed Yaseen Ali, S/o. Sved Yakub Ali. aoec H.No.8-4-550/27'llA, Natraj Nagar. AG Colony, Hydeiaba l Gousiya Begum, W/o. Ahmed l\,4uneeruddin, aqe: H.No.8-4-550/27118. Natraj Nagar, AG Cotony, HyderSbr about 48 years,

3. Taheerunissa, W/o. Nazeer Ahmed, aged about 43 years, H.No.B-4-550/27'1, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad

4. Shareefa Bee, W/o. late Shaik Mohiuddin, aged about 73 years, H.No.8-4-550/271lC, Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad

5. Zainuddin Md., S/o. Md. Qamurddin, aged about 48 years, H.No.8-4-550/27'1l1 , Natraj Nagar, AG Colony, Hyderabad

6. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretary, Hyderabad

7. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. (RR6 & 7 are not necessary parties in this petition)

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dl.2Ol06l2011 passed in WPMP.No.19605/2011 in WP.No.16348/2011, pending dlsposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MIODE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE WR!T PETITION NO: 31703 OF 2011 Between:

1. Md. lvlehrajuddin, S/o. Late Md.Ruknuddin, aged about H.No.8-4-550/50, Natraj Nagar, A.G.Colony, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Kamlesh Bala, W/o. Kailash Chandra, aged about H.No.8-4-550/29 & 30 Natrai Nagar, Near A.G.Colony, A.G.Colony, Hyderabad. AND

50 years, 43 years, Erragadda

...PETITIONERS Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section Circle X (Old Circle V) Khairtabad, Hyderabad Additional Commissioner Planning, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad Spl. Deputy Collector /LAO, 6th floor, GHMC, Tank bund, Hyderabad Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrr a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or drrection particularly o- ) in the nature of writ of mandamus Declaring the action of the respondents in issuing i No.8/608/2008 dated 26.08 201 '1 Form I and 1( representations of the petitioners as per this Hor' WPl13400l2OO8 dated 29.04.2010 as illegal imp- Article 3004 and 350 of the Constitution of lndia Further direct the respondents to lay the road as running from A.G.Colony to Rajeev nagar "T" .J through unused water sump area, which causes nc public and no flnancral burden on the state excheLlrl the religious shrines and etc., l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 1(WPMP. NO: 39342 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thrr in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc r direct the respondents not to lay the 60'0" feet new ro;r GHIVi of November, 2OO7 which is running behind the 'f ; Chilla, Sri Ram Stores, Etc., and consequently stay proceedings of the third respondent in proceeding I

26. O8.2O11 of Form 9 and 10, pending disposal of the writ : cqu isition proceed ing without considering ,le Court direction rn per and vrolative of per the earlier plan nction straight road rard ship either to the r and also protecting lircu mstances stated rt may be pleased to as per the RDP of nple, Religious place he land Acquisition o.B/608/2008 dated rtitio n. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 29949 OF 201 2l Petition under Order 26 rule g r/w Section 15i Ct, circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of I Court may be pleased to appoint an ADVOCATE COIV \ physical inquiry report along with examination of docume. report on directing the Respondent not to lay the ro: Development Plan 2007 of GHMC which is zigzag affectint and relrgious places. The straight road as per 2OO1 plan o. ) praying that in the re petition, the High ISSION and call for s as a conseq uence 1 as per the Road he private properties publrc interest which )

rs a straight road no private properties, no religious places are affected and no burden to the ex-checker, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HI(]H COURT FOR THE STATE OF'IT I ANGANA AT HYDERABAD I{ON'BI-E SRI IUS'IICE SUDDALA CHALA ATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.16348 & 31703 (t 2017 DATE:29.0L.2026 \\'.l'] No. 16348 of 2011 Bchvcc n: Sr r-.il Yasccn Ali s/o. Sved Yaku[r.-\lr Il.\t,.r-, { 550/2il/ A, Natraj Na11.rr, -\C ( olonr,. IIr'.lelalracl antl four,rthers ,\clnrinistration ancl Urban Development (l r) Dc rartrnent, dated 21 ()3 20r0. ,A nt{ l-ha ( ( ) nr r)l issiolrer, GlLr,r ter [l yrlernlrartl Municipal Cot po t a[ion, -I a:rl llund, Hl,derabacl anrl tr.r,o othcrs. Rcspondcnts

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.15348 of 2011: ['he insltrnt writ petition is filed seeking a rJ r ectiort fronr this Cor,rrt to quash the proceedirlgs/ notices issucd to t[ : pctitioncrs zrlde No.Lil608/201.18, clated 19.06.2009 by the l,a resp()n, :nt though their I)t.titronets premisL's arc not falling under G.C).lvls.No 163, Mtrnicipal clS illegal, improper arncl r.iolativc. .A rticle 21 of Clorrstitution oI lr-rdia alld violative of cstablishecl jr.r liciat pr-cctdents and further direction was sougl.rt to the respondellts to lay a road as per the G.O.Nis.No.363 dated 2108.2010 and plans annexed to it in respect of Circlc-X of GH\4C \\'itltout arl' cleviatior-t and violations W.P.No.31703 of 2011

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the respondcrrts in issuing lancl acquisition proceedings No.B/608/2008 dated 26.08.101[ in l]orm-9 and 10 without considcring thc representations oI the pctitioncrs as per this llon'ble Court's direction in W.P.No.13100/2008, dated 29.04.2010, as illegat, improper and violative of Articles 300-;\ and 350 of the Constitution of India, anc'l to further direct tl-rc rcspondents to lay a roacl as pcr the earlier plan running fron'r A.G.Colony to Rajeev Nagar T-Junction straight road tfuough unused water sump area, as it causes no hardship either to the public and no financial burden on the State Excl.requer and also to protccI the religious sluines in the course of laying of a road

3. As similar prayers are sought in both the writ petitions and issue is one and the same, though n.rit petitions r.r,ere heard separately, they are being disposed of bl' this commorr order

4. The brit'l f.rcts of the case in W.P.No.16348 of 0l I are that, the 3r.d responclL'nt hacl issued public notification utrclt ' Sct tiot't 1(1) of the [-ancl Actlursition ,\ct, i894 (for sl'rori, the'.\''). prtlLrosing tcr al cy-rirc. the lrorrst's of the writ pctitioners for wicl tinl', of tht' road trntl thc s.rm(' \\'ils publishecl in a local newsPal)(' s olr 29.07 2008, pursuant io u'ltrch, thc petitioners alleged to hervr' itPPt:trretl in the tlifft re-rrt salc ,-lc'cds. That the National- Highu',i Ill tlcrabacl to er1(lurrv untlt'r Se'ction 5(A) of thc Act. The blicl- , r.crrl-teuts of thc u,rit pc'titiorl'rs are that, thcy havc purchased tht lrortions o[ the house bt-arrinri No.8-4-550/27I individualtl' frt, I [).R.K Prasad through his tit'rreral Power of Attorncy Holder [,r tlistinct ancl Ronrlra)' at Lht- intersection ESI Hospital, Yt'rrargu tta, a pcrpenclicular roacl u,as passil-lg from Governmetll vle nt.1[ Flospita[, ,A1,un'cdic, Co',,t. Hospital, Kalyan Nagar, Vikasptr i, n'hich;oins at ACs quarters jr-rr-rction acl at this place, it is takinq right turn upto DCHS hospital, proceecling straight to roads frtr t r thc: corners of AGS quarttrs larrrcl upto temple at Natral' Nagar lrr rction, and from the Natral N.r11ar junction right in front of tht: rmple proceeds to$,arcls Natrai Nagar, Yerragdda. Thereafter, t L road ta kc left ,,1,

turns towards thc Nagarjuna Enclave Balaji Swarnapuri Colony joirrs at the man road T-junction Sri Ratn Na11ar, from 'f-Junction Sriram Nagar to Nagarjuna Ent.lar.e, and thcrt- is a 60 it existirrg road, from Sri Ram Nagar T-iunction to Nag.rrjurra Enclave eithcr siclc of the land are undcr the layouts, that fror-r-r the temple to the Nagarjuna Enclave Circle,20 ft. roaci is in existt-t1ct'

5. The Government after caref ul consicleratiotl keeping the viet'"' ol' the ',,ehicular traffic, intendeci to r.r'iden tl're road to 60 ft. for srnooth traffic flow; that the Northern siclc of tho 20 ft roacl lo bc widened further to 40 ft as per the Govt. aPprroved plan dde G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010, arrcl further thc p16115 anncxccl to it and Scheme was also obtained by the Governt-t-tt:trt by cot-tscut aftcr survey and inquiry.

It is contended that basing on the GHMC Proposals, the land acquisition notification was issued on24.07.2008 and objections were called for under Section 5(A) oi the Act and n'ithout conducting physical enquiry as per the Act, notices were issued only to four persons on the Northern side of the existing 20 ft. roacl and unfortunately, the residential houses on the Southern side of the

,. r()ad, though n()t affectcd bv the G.O.Ms.No.36l] ated 21.08.2010, vverc also issur-tl ar quisition notices and that tl r ugh the r-rotices rt,c.rt'issued to ont, l).li..K.Prasatl, rt,ho was tlic prt' ious ownL'r,.ruc{ orrlr' orr filirrr,, tht' reprcsentati()ns, notices !\'.'' issuecl to thc pt,titioncrs thorr.gl-r thcv are no r,r,.r)'connectecl kr tl : road wiclerring sc h r't't't c:

7. lt is also ( ()nt{rnLled that rlue to external f o', c5, Oo1i,i,'al ancl biaserl iclcas, th(,Cl l\iC officials irr collusion n'itlr he lttcal lcarlers, h.lrassinq thc Pt liliongrs ancl tfueatening o1 eviction though a r(' tht'ir'rt-sirientral Irotrscs on thc Sor:them side thou r r they art' rrot at C.O.N4s.No.363, claterl 21.08.2010. Further, thougI r repres(]rltation r't,;r s submittctl on 25.05.2011 to the 1't respondent, I re same rvas not all t.rlling untlt'r tlrt, roacl n,idening progranr ne as I)er the clisposed oi l.rv tl.re GHMC. It is also contcnrl ,d that, crs per G.().Ms.No.36,3, clatecl 21.08.2010, the notices iss;:d by tht, Lancl Accluisition proccttiings under I)/608/2008, dartt 19.06.2019, are krt.rlh' illegal, n,ithout any application of mind or sanction of law and liarble to be quashed and therefore, the1, prar:cl to direct the r(,.sponclerlts to strictlv adhere to G.O.Ms.No.3tr.l tatecl 21.()8.2010

and thc plans annexed to it ar)d to quash the lancl acquisition proceeclings, dated 1 9.06.2009.

8. Pt'r cLtntrn, the respondents havc filccl the countcr-tr if i clav it, contenclir-rg that the respondcnts have issuccl the procr-'cdir-rgs No.B/608/2008 dated 19.06.2009 by considerirrg al1 the objcctions and adhcring to the G.O.Ms.No.3(r3, datecl 21.08.2010 and all thc oblcctions raised by the petitiorters against the lanci acquisitror-t propostrls were examined in cle'tarl arrcl clisposecl of bv inclicating dctailecl remarks on each ancl c'r'cry objection vide Proceed inils ciatecl 19.06.2009. Further, it was contended that the road clcveloprnent plan, on tl.re basis of r'r,hich thc lanc1 acquisitiorr proposals were drawn incorporated in the master platt l4ras trpprover'l z,ide G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010. Accordingll', onlv Natraj Nagar Colony road is proposed as 60 ft. wide roacl in it, as such, thc land acquisition proposals moved by the respondcnt- Corporation are in accordance with the master plan approved z'ide G.O.Ms.No.363 and there is no deviation to the said G.O., and in fact, it was also contended that the petitioners along with other local residents of the area have participated in Section 5(A) enquiry ancl the notification uncler Section 4(1) was Ptl - isht:d ilr local /er(, cottsirit'rt'c1 arrtl d islrosetl oi. l-hat the coutentio r rais(]L'l bv the petltioncrs that tltt'sc respondents havc lrot follolr'ed C.O.\ls.No.3(rJ. is crront,c'rus arnrl untenable. It is al. r corrtertcleci that tht- public at l.rrge'. lt is c<>ntcnclccl tl-rat it is not corr ( :t to say that thc Iretitioners larrrls ;rrt' rrot iallin15 under'60 ft. roarl rs per the plans r1c-\\rsL)apers anr{ tl-rc rndir,iclutrl applications c-'xzrminccl, arurexeci to C.().NIs.NL,..l63.rrrc1 the master Lrlan ,r )proved by said for the bettel atlrninistration ancl access to the inr rates of the said a re,a, the roads are lrcin11 rviclerred keeping the vicrr of tlrc bencfit of

9. Insofar as thr, \'\t ['].No.31703 of 2077 is t'o rcerned, though respondents auttrorities praycd to dismiss the inst. r-rt rr, rit petitiorrs as being ntisconr:eivctl n,ithout there being any suhs -ar-rtial proof peti tioners afe cliffcrer-rt, the reliefs are one al]( thc same and pertaining to the same area, same road and sanrc land acquisition proceerlings, clatecl 26.8.201.1 r.v;rs challenged anr{ hat the counter- G.O. ,\s such, it rrarrnot be. saitl that lar-rd acquisiti rr-r prepres;i[5 n1g coliLr'.lr)' to tlrt' nrastt,r plan approvecl vide sai I G.O., and thc affidavit was also filed in thc similar I irres r,vith that of thr. \\r.P.No.16348 of 201 1.

10. Llearcl Nlr. Vlohd.Abclul Rasheecl, lt.rrncll counsel for thc petitioners in botl'r the u'rit petitions anc'l \1r. Nlidde Arun Kunr.rr, learnccl Standir-rg Counsel for GHMC ancl hav irrg given eat nest con siclc.ra tiorr to tltc sulrmissions rnade bv the lc.;rnred counscls orr eitl-rer sicle, have pt rused the rnatcrial on record I L Thc surn anr{ substancc of the case of thc rvrit petitiorrers is that, the official rcspondents are not follon,ir-rg thc due lrroce('lure contcmplated untler G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21 .08.2010 and thrrt tl-rough the resitler-rtial houses of the petitioltcrs are not comins ur.rder the 60 ft. road, they have proposed to road widening for 60 ft road and that the auihorities without following due procedure of law, has issued saic.l notifications.

12. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 19.06.2009 would short that the notificatiorr under Section 4(1) of the Act has been aprproi,ed by the District, Collector, Hyderabad District ardc No.D3/10305/ 2008, dated 24.07.2008, rvhich was published under ordinarv clausc in Hyclerabad l)istrict Gazette No.90, dated 29.07.2008 anrl in local Scct irl-r ne\^/spapers, rlcllll('l\', '-f irnes oi India' (English) ar t : 'Su rva' ( l'cltrgu) on 29.07.2006 .ttrr-1 art the localitv on 30.06.2008, I re Notice under 5A lras lrccn rssuc'tl i'tr/r' refcrc.ncc 3'' itcil callir-rg [or ob;cx-tions to tlrr' .rt'r.luisitiorr Procecdirrgs bv f irrg encltr irv on objcctions raiserl bl the inciiviclr-ral religious stru' ures along rvith 17 09.2008 antl tlrt' sait't procet'tlirrgs have also ir-rt ( rPorated several residents of Iiajir Nagar, Natraj N.igtrr, Balaji Su',rr' apuri, arrcl other lot-alrtics ancl otlrcr individual Persons. Thcre is a Iear obsr,-'rvation bv the L)rstnct e.rllector in thc saicl prroceeclit-tgs i rdicating that all prbccedings th.rt tl-rc road rt'iclening rt'ork has L.r't r takerr up bt'the widening is pr6;1cvs,'c1 to meet the haffic cong( ( ion and for the thc objcctions ratstrtl bv the pretitioner-s \,\'cre dul'' lkeu carc of atld acldressccl therr-ttpon, ancl further, it is also s, ted in the said Commissiontr, Cll lNlC and alignrnent carlnot ht' t ranged which is done after takinl; thc practicaI survey for laying th,: road. GI IMC as per thc Road Dcvclopmcnt Plar.r, I )Proved by tl-re

13. Further, it is also statt'd itr the said pro: : 'cllngs that road public convenicnce ancl in the larger interest of tlrr rublic tl. Tl.rc objections !{'ere dulv corrsidcrcd and overrulcd and though the writ petitions h.rve been fileci w,av-back in the vear 201 l, tht' Iearnecl counsel for thc petitront rs has not indicatec] the prr.sent l3rouncl rcality r,r,tth regarcl to thc rt,idenirrg of the roacl. The learnctl Stancling Counsel has not plactcl any record rvhether the roacl n'iclening programme has bccn urrclertaken or completed. lr-r tlrat vicn, of thc mattcr, the ;rrocgl'lu1c contemplateci under thc Act has bc.cn dulv follon,ed ['rv the respondents by issuing the ciraft notificatior-r under Section a(l) of the Act and the objections unclcr Sectior.r 5(A) of the Act r,vt-.re cl uly considered. That procedurally thc.re is nothing to shor,r, that the rreither the G.O.Ms.No.363 has bcen contravencd nor anv of the provisiorrs of the Act have bcerr contravened. [t is settlec] I.rt, tl'rat in the case of larger interest of the public, the road wiclening of a particular road cannot be interdictcc-l by the Court under Article 226 of the Constituiion of Inclia, and r-nore particularly, wherr thcrc is no violation of any provisions of the statutes or the Rules governed therein. Further, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as contended. ln the instant CTl SE, nothing is elicited Lr_v thc writ petitioners rvarr.rnting irrterference bv this Court ancl accordingly, the,.rit petitions are clt,r'oid of ments ancl arc Iiablc to l:c c'lismissed. G.O.Ms.No.363, claterl 21.08.2010 ancl nothing ( ( rltriirl has bcr-'r.r

15. As it is er identlr clcar that thc.rc is no devr.:t on to the, alleget'{ ptaced by tl're petitiorrcrs to substantiate tl-reil l, ievance. In such vien, of the rnatter, thc r.r,rit pctitions are ac(( r -llnglr, Iitrble for

16. The \\'rit Petitions arc rlcvoitl ol- merits lnd accr)rdinslv rclectrol-r d ismissed 17 . 'fhere shall bc no order .]s to costs. Perrd i rg miscellaneous applications if any shall stancl closccl To, //TRUE COPY// \ One CC to SRI IT4OHAMI\4ED ABDUL RASHEED}.AdV) \ One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUN/AR, SC FOR GHIV( Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACOUISITION, Higl- { Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, t.t of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies SD/. B.REKHA RANI ,.IASS ISTANT REGISTRAR \ , SECTION OFFICER :ate [OPUC] loPUCl ourt for the State of 3h Court for the State Itate of Telangana at

J

BSR TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910112026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.16348 & 31703 of 2O11 (: 1HES 0i rt$ ?s

DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIO NS, WITHOUT COSTS o r1 I ,\,\,b t'

* €i;- - I PAT