Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 717 (TS)

Addula Jayamma , Vijayamma v. State of Telangana

2025-05-28

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (T. VINOD KUMAR, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and perused the record. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner of existing building bearing House No.4-91(old), Nos.4-15, 4-16, 4-17 (new) of Yedula Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District, having acquired the same on 22.05.1987 for valid consideration; that upon purchasing the same, said property having mutated on to her name and being assessed to property tax since then. 3. Petitioner contends that the 3 rd and 4 th respondents, in the name of giving effect to the G.O.Rt.No.130, TR & B (R.II) Dept., dt.27.11.2014, whereby administrative sanction orders were issued for widening single roads to double lane roads in all Assembly Constituencies, including the road from Nagarkurnool to Gopalpet (via) Revally from k.m. 0/0 to 36/4 in Mahaboobnagar District, have highhandedly trespassed into her property on the early hours of 22.11.2021 and demolished the steps on the front side of the petitioner’s house/mulgies including 3 feet stair case, without acquiring the said land and without paying any compensation or by following due procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 4. Petitioner further contends that if the property of the petitioner is required for public purposes, the respondents-authorities owe a duty to initiate acquisition proceedings by determining and paying compensation, and only thereafter can take up the work of laying road by demolishing the petitioner’s property. 5. Petitioner further contends that the 3 rd and 4 th respondents, without following the due process of law, at the instance and pressure of local Sarpanch, have resorted to the aforesaid illegal and unauthorized act of demolition of the stair case of the petitioner’s house/mulgies and also the front steps of the shops/mulgies on the sole ground of the petitioner’s husband is inimical towards them and that there is no necessity to widen the existing road. 6. 6. It is also contended by the petitioner that on the 3 rd and 4 th respondents resorting to the aforesaid act of demolishing the petitioner’s house and steps without following due process of law, it had approached the District Collector by submitting a representation; that inspite of the petitioner approaching the 2 nd respondent and submitting the representation, the same did not yield any result; and thus, the aforesaid acts of the respondents are in clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India depriving the petitioner of her property. 7. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 are filed. The 3 rd respondent by the counter affidavit filed claims that the subject matter of the road is under the control of R & B Department and that the Government had accorded administrative sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.130, under Corenet Plan for the work of widening single lane road to double lane from Nagarkurnool to Gopalpet via Revally from km 0/0 to 36/4 in old Mahaboobnagar District, as the road is busy with commercial vehicles and the public of nearby villages having requested for such widening. 8. By the counter affidavit it is further contended by the 3rd respondent that the 4 th respondent is the authority in local body area which has to handover the required area for the 3 rd respondent authority to commence road widening work. 9. By the counter affidavit, the 3 rd respondent had claimed that it is no way concerned with the demolition of the petitioner’s house/mulgies on 22.11.2024 as claimed in the writ petition. 10. By the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has further stated that the said respondent will commence the road widening work only after the 4 th respondent handing over the vacant and clear site to R & B Department, and in the meantime, the said R & B authorities are executing the road widening work on the available existing R & B road boundary only. 11. The 4 th respondent, by the counter affidavit, while denying the writ averments, contended that the subject road is under the control of the 3 rd respondent, which is covered by the administrative sanction accorded vide G.O.Rt.No.130, based on the proposals of the Engineering-in-Chief(R&B) for 260 number of works. 12. 11. The 4 th respondent, by the counter affidavit, while denying the writ averments, contended that the subject road is under the control of the 3 rd respondent, which is covered by the administrative sanction accorded vide G.O.Rt.No.130, based on the proposals of the Engineering-in-Chief(R&B) for 260 number of works. 12. By the counter affidavit the 4 th respondent denied that on the early hours of 22.11.2021, the 3rd and 4th respondents and their employees trespassing into the subject property and demolishing the steps of the subject mulgies and also trying to demolish the staircase area of the said mulgies. 13. By the counter affidavit, the 4 th respondent contended that the construction of mulgies by the petitioner is an encroachment on the existing road and even the alleged sale deed, under which the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property, does not refer to any extent of area of house. 14. By the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, it is further contended that the 4 th respondent having learnt that the villagers i.e., possessors of land on both sides of the subject road having come to an understanding to widen the road, since the existing road is very narrow and not enough to cater to the needs of the public and accordingly made a marking with measurement of 33 feet from centre of the road to ascertain the area which would be affected by the road widening work. 15. By the counter affidavit, it is contended that the 4 th respondent has no role in the alleged road widening work and that the staff of the 4th respondent never went to the subject house/mulgies and demolished the steps of the mulgies, as claimed by the petitioner. 16. On behalf of the 4 th respondent, it is also contended that it is the 3 rd respondent, who has to maintain the roads and the 3 rd respondent did not address any letter asking for road widening and it appears that the 3 rd respondent executed the work on the available and existing R & B road boundary only. 17. The 4 th respondent, by stating as above, and also reserving its liberty to file additional counter at a later stage, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 19. 17. The 4 th respondent, by stating as above, and also reserving its liberty to file additional counter at a later stage, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 19. A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents would clearly indicate that the said respondents are trying to blame one-another claiming themselves to be ignorant and innocent. 20. While the 3rd respondent is claiming of it undertaking road widening only on the available existing R & B road boundary and the staff of the said respondent not involving in the demolition of stair case of the petitioner’s mulgies, on the other hand, the 4 th respondent claims that it is the responsibility of the R & B department to maintain the roads and they have not received any letter from the 3rd respondent with regard to the widening of the road. 21. Notwithstanding the fact of the 3 rd and 4 th respondents equally feign ignorance of their staff trespassing into the petitioner’s property and demolishing the staircase of mulgies, the fact remains that the stair case of the petitioner’s mulgies having been demolished on 21.11.2021. 22. Though the 4th respondent by the counter affidavit filed denied of its staff being involved in the demolition of staircase of the petitioner’s mulgies or the steps of the mulgies, however, would contend that it has come to the knowledge of the 4 th respondent of the villagers i.e., the possessors of respective property on both sides of the subject road having come to an understanding to widen the road, as the same is very narrow and not enough to cater the needs of the public, it is to be noted that widening of a public road cannot be undertaken by individuals on their own unless they voluntarily come up and surrender the required area in favour of the 3 rd or 4 th respondents, for them to undertake such works. 23. 23. Admittedly, the petitioner’s property is adjacent to the subject road, who, as would be evident, did not consent for the so called understanding, if any, to widen the road by possessors of the respective properties on both sides of the road for the 4 th respondent to claim of the respective possessors on both sides of the road having taken up the said work nor the said act can be attributed to act of god. 24. It is also curious to know that the 4 th respondent while claiming that it is no way involved in the road widening work, however, had stated that the construction of subject Mulgies by the petitioner is an encroachment on the existing road. 25. If the said construction is an encroachment on the existing road, the 4 th respondent, who is bestowed with the duty to ensure that no such illegal construction comes up, ought to have taken action when the alleged construction was being made. 26. Further, assuming that the 4 th respondent, who claims to be working only from 16.04.2020, at least on noticing the said construction to be an encroachment of the road, ought to have taken steps by issuing notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation and taking further action thereon, in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. Admittedly, no such action has been taken by the 4 th respondent till date. 27. Thus, the explanation, now given by the 4th respondent of the said construction to be an encroachment on to the road, in the considered view of this Court is only invented for the purpose of filing of counter affidavit in the present Writ Petition to cause prejudice against the petitioner in the mind of this Court. 28. Since, both the 3 rd and 4 th respondents have claimed that the aforesaid demolition of steps of the petitioner’s property is not undertaken by them, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted liberty to lodge a complaint against the aforesaid illegal action with the concerned police for them to investigate and take necessary action against the person responsible for such action. 29. 29. Further, since, the 3 rd respondent claims of it undertaking road widening work on available existing R & B road boundary only, while the 4 th respondent claims of it not receiving any communication/letter from the 3 rd respondent with regard to the proposed widening of the road, this Court is of the further view that either of the respondents in the event of intending to take steps for widening the road, are required to follow due process of law as prescribed under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for acquiring the land/property required for widening of the road and paying compensation or by issuing notice, in the event of any alleged encroachment made on the R & B road and taking action, by following due process of law. 30. Till such time the respondents initiate action as detailed herein above, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s house/mulgies bearing No.4-91(old), Nos.4-15, 4-16, 4-17 (new) of Yedula Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Wanaparthy District, which is subject matter of the present Writ Petition. 31. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 32. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.