A. Ravinder Goud v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-16. A. Ravinder Goud v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3255 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9016 OF 2026 Between: A. Ravinder Goud, S/o Bagaiah Goud Age about 54 years, Occ: Bussiness. H No. 5-55, Adarsh Nagar Colony, Serlingampally Village and Mandal, Rangareddy, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and urban development Secretariat Hyderabad 2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner Lower Tank Bund Hyderabad 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tankbund 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, order or direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his property house bearing No. 5-212-3, admeasuring 54. 28 sq. yards situated at Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to Notice dated 16-06-2025 issued under Section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 21, without considering the Petitione/s objections and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice. unconstitutional, contrary to the Act and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd without following due procedure of law in respondents not to take any coercive steps respect of the above property. l. A.
NO: 1 OF 2026 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition uncler Section 151 CPC High Court may petition, the be pleased to stay all affidavit filed in support of the and acquisition of property bearing further proceedings including dispossession 54. 28 sq. yards situated at Serilingampally house bearing 3-212-2, admeasuring pursuant District to Notice dated 16-06-2025, Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy pending disposal of the writ petition' NARASAMMA Counset for thrl Petitioner: SRI B'LAKSHMI qP-FgL{T|ADMN & URBAN DEV Counset for thr: Respondent No'l: REDDY, counser for rhr: Respondent Nos. 2 " '' 33',$Ht',,jlrTUDHAN The Court maole the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. V. SHRAVAN KTIITIAR WRIT PETITION No. 9O16 of 2o. 26 DATE OF ORDER: 16. 0,4. 20126 Between: A. Ravinder Goud, S/o. Bagaiah Goud ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep.
by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others ... Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is fited questioning the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his property house bearing No. s-2/2-3, admeasuring 54. 28 square yards situated at serilingampally village & Mandal, Rangareddy District (herein after referred as "subject propergr") pursuant to the notice dated L6. o6. 2o2s issued under Section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 21, without considering the petitioner's objections and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. A conseqLrential prayer is sought to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to take any coercive steps without following due procedure of law in respect of subject property. 2.
The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the subject F,roperty, acquired vide registered sale deed bearing documenl. No. 34lL /2oL3, dated o7. 0s. 2013. The petitioner submits that he was in uninterrupted possession on the subject property which was also assessed by the respondents. The subject property is a commercial establishment, from which the petitioner is deriving his livelihood. The respondent authorities issued a notice dated 16. 06. 2025 under section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 2r, proposing acquisition of the subject property required for public purpose namely road widening (30 meters x 36 meterr;) road from Gulmohar park Junction to BHEL Junction via Taranagar and proposed RoB at Lingampally Railway crossing under H-citi and directed the interested persons to submit their objections. upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner' filed written objections on 13. 0 B. 2o2s. 3.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that neither personal hearing was granted to the petitioner nor his objectionr; werefonsidered by the respondents. Despite pending / consideration of the petitioner's objections, the respondent I I i authorities are proceeding with acquisition and are attempting to i forcefully dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Questioning the action of respondent authorities, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar set of circumstances, this Court in W. P. No. 7O92 of 2Ol9 by an order dated 03. O4. 2019, disposed the writ petition directing the respondents to follow due procedure prescribed under Section 147 of the Act and take possession of the property. It was also made clear that in the event the petitioner is willing to take compensation in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 33O, dated 28. 12. 2017, offered by the GHMC, he be paid the same, and prays to pass similar orders. 5.
Per contra, learrted counsel representing learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that t I 1. in terms of Section L47 of the GHMC Act, the respondents would follow the procedure under the provisions of GHMC, 2013 Act and after considering the petitioner's objections, shall take appropriate steps following due process of law 6. Hear,l learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 'Standing counsel r,epresenting learned Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No. 2. 7. Recording the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent No. 2, and without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the respondents are directed to follow due process of law under the relevant provisions of GHMC Act and consider the objections made by petitioner on 13. 08. 2025 and till the award is passed, the petitioner shall not be disposr;essed from the subject property. B.
wittr the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of with consent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and urban development Secretilriat Hyderabad 2. The Cr>mmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund l-lyderabad 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tankbund Hyderabad 4. One C,3 to SRI B. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 0. Two CD Copies M PMK HIGH COI. 'RT DATED i 1610412026 1ne s t ORDER o C) WP. No. 9016 of 2026 2 7 APR ? [? 6 * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \^
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.