WP/6220/2016 of D. RAGHUNATH REDDY, MBNR. Vs PRL. SECY., M.A. AND U.D. DEPT. AND 3 ORS. on 27 January 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief/s "...1o issuc an appropriate Writ. Order or Direction more particularly one in tlte nantre of Writ o.f Mandamts, declaring action oJ the Respondents herain in laying road oyer the petitioner's Plot No. 30, adnrcasuring 200 Sq. Yds, in Sy'.No. 249 & 250 of Llnited Teachers F ederalion llousing Colony situated at Yenugonda Sivar, Mahabubnagar District, without issuing any notice or without Jbllowing due process o.[ law, us being illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and violalivr: of Articles 14, 2l and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequenlly to direct lhe respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner as per the existing market value in the interest ofjusticc and pass such other order or orders os are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case... "

2. Heard Mr. P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel f:' the petitioner and Mr.Klishna Reddy Putta, learned Standin 3 Counsel for Mahabubnagar Municipal Corporation. Perused the re: trd

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended tlr t the petitioner owns Plot No.30 admeasuring 200 sq. yds in Survey 1los.249 &250 ol United Teachers Federation Housing Colony, Yt rugonda Sivar, Mahabubnagar District, having purchased it thror t h registered a agreement of sale-cum-General Poi,ver of Attomey rl ed No.83 l5 of 2006 dated 30. 112006 from the rightful owner and t:: petitioner has been in peaceful possession, since then.

4. It is further contended that in the year, 2008, the Mahabubnagar Municipal Corporation/3'd respondent started iaying a { ement concrete road, by encroaching the petitioner's plot, without a n y notice, without fbllowing due process for acquisition, or payinll compensation. The petitioner made multiple representations to the municipal authorities and other concemed officials including r:;pondent Nos.2 and 4 in the year 2009,2012,2015 and 2016 , seel ing survey and boundary fixation. Pursuant thereto, though the 4tr' i-cspondent has issued notice to all the concemed parties and conduct: Isurvey, which was not informed to the petitioner Despite surveys, the authorities failed to take any action in this matter.

5. Thus, aggrieved by the unlar,vful laying of the road over his property, the petitioner filed instant writ petition and seeking intervention of this Court to grant appropriate relief to protect his rights, including recognition of ownership, removal of encroachment, and to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, flled counter-affidavit, contending that the petitioner purchased Plot No.30 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. in United Teachers Federation Housing Colony, Mahabubnagar, in the year 2006 made several representations from 2009 onwards alleging that a municipal road was laid over his plot without issuing any prior notice. In response thereto, a field Inspection was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor on 22.10.2009 and a joint inspection was conducted by the officials of the Municipality along with Mandal Surveyor on 22.11.2025 in the presence of the petitioner and filed inspection report which confirmed the existence of an 18 ft. x 60 ft. CC road within the said plot; however, there are no sanctioned records or municipal approvals indicating that the said road was officially laid by tt: municipality It is lurther contended that verihcation with the adjact:r t plot owner of plot No.29 also confirmed that the road lies within he petitioner's property. lt is lurther contended that the responder) s cannot grant cornpensation due to the absence of sanctioned recc'ds, but if this Court finds the petitioner eligible for any corr pensation, the 3'd respondent authorities are willing to consick,r for grant of 'fransferable Development Rights (TDR) as per irl plicable rules, subject to eligibility. It is also contended that the wri petition is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of fat;t relating to the existence of the road, ownership of the land, anrl entitlement to compensation, which require adjudication by a compe t rnt Civil Court, and therefbre, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition

7. I have taken note of the respective submission; rr-rade on either siclc. lt is an adrnitted fact that a municipal road has ,een laid in the petitioner's plot without notice or consenl and the petit oner purchased the said plot for valid consideration and has been in rossession of it since the date of purchase. Further, the responder No.3 by the Counter Affidavit acceded that the joint inspectiou epo( confirms that a CC road measuring 18 feet x 60 feet has been aid within ptot

No.30 of the petitioner and it appears to have been constructed without following due process of law and without any sanctioned plan.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that despite several applications made by the petitioner since the inspection was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor on22.10.2009, there has been inaction on the part of the respondents in verilying records and taking further action on the petitioner's representations under the old enactment

9. The respondents, being statutory authorities are bound to follow the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act before using any private properlies by issuing notice under Section 41, determining compensation, and only thereafter proceed with laying the road. There is no record to indicate that the said road was officially laid by the Municipality. However, in fact, the land has been taken over and used for public purpose. As Such, the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land so utilized and calculating as on the date of filing of the writ petition for this purpose, the respondents are required to ascertain when the road was actually laid o

10. [n view of the above, the writ petition is <I: respondents are directed to initiate acquisition proceerl applicable laws as on the date of laying of roads arr compensation payable to the writ petitioner as per the it existed on the said date The respondents are further the compensation along with interest at the rate ot'7 from the date of acquisition ti1l the date of filing of t within three (3) months from the date of receipt c I order, in terms of the Act, 1895' There shall be no orr[' closed Miscellaneous petitions, pending if an) ' shall stand rosed of. The ngs, as Per the determine the narket value as directed to PaY 5oln Per annum re writ petition, a copy ol this r as to costs. SD/- C.DEEPIKA sl ;TANT REGISTRAR (' To i The Commissioner' Mahabubnagar Distnct'

4. The Mandal SurveYor' District. //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER I Urba i, HYde )istrict. Mahabubnagar MunicilrilitY' Mahabubnagar' Thasildar Office, Mahabtr nagar' Mahabubnagar n Development rabad.

;:?,?|[iffi :f ?Jt??34,$]li:e'A'J:IU'53::J':: The District Collector, Mahabubnagar' Mahabubnaga'

5. One CC to SRI P SHASHI KIRAN' Advocate IOPUCI . l,,: *",3..i1: S,'",:%,YBi::'J:J,l:illEX,.1't"* and L I oan Devero pment' H is h 7 Two ccs to Gp for Revenue, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] A one CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' S C for lahabubnagar lr/unicipal CorPoration [OPUC]

9. Two CD CoPies .\*' \

I{IGH COURT DATE D:2710112026 ?07r o ( iit R 26, ) T Dq o () a )j * '* sp,. r.-]

ORDER

WP.N,: .6220 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE VI RIT PETITION WIT HOUT COSTS cd'