Disposed

Vanchanagiri Bixpathi S/o. Sarangapani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2025WP/14998/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged road-laying through their plots without land acquisition proceedings or notice. Respondents stated no road-widening works were presently undertaken. The writ petition was disposed of directing respondents not to interfere with possession except in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' possession except in accordance with law; liberty to acquire per law for public purpose; no costs.

Vanchanagiri Bixpathi S/o. Sarangapani Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸³ I

¶2

!j !i ii ii tl i iI I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) .^{' '} ' :.:,' ''r, : '^-'

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT 'r^{'" 1'} '

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE LO(MI NARAYANA ALTSHETW

¶7

Between

¶8

vanchanagiri BixpathjS./9..sa1angapani, pac Business, R/o. H.No.1g-7-109, Karimabad, Warangal District, Te6nland State.^-

¶9

4yytgsrilatha, wo. Vanchanagiri Bixapathi,:occ Househotd, R/o. H.No.1g-71 09, Ka ri mabad, Wa ra nga I Distiict, f eiingaha- Stali.

¶10

4vula Vinodha,, YVlq .irgtrakar, occ Busineqs, R/o. H.No.16-g-159, MeUs Colony,WarangalDistrict,Tehn!anaState.,...,,

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The state. of^ Telangarla, .rep by_its,princpa! .secretary, Municipal Administration Departm-ent, Teladgani Secretariat buiHingi, l-iyo'drauao.

¶14

2 3[:[1T.i.Wi,,y;3:i u9,",:",'3g,lr:3h531ft,H"5?lg:r,^{rep bv its vice-}

¶15

D, rep ; bv its co m m issione r, wa ra ns ar,

¶16

ilir",,y#r3?r1i #T:.,f"{ #',sij.x]o

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thercwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularty one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in trying to lay the road through the western portion of the petitioners ptots to an extent of 120 sq.yards and 1900 sq. yards totatty admeasuring 2o2o sq. yards in Sy.NO.673 situated at Ursu Revenue Viltage, Warangal Mandal and District without initiating proceedings under land Acquisition Act and without issuing any notice, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequenfly direct the respondents not to proceed further with the road work thnough the petitioners land

¶18

¶19

I I! I,I I I i i ! i i i

¶20

without following the land acquisition procedings or without following any procedure under Iaw.

¶21

t.:

¶22

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the rerspondents not to proceed further by laying road through the, petitioners' land without fotlowing the land acquisition proceedings or without ,^{,: ,,..} :, following any procedure under law on the western side of the petitionefs' plots,to : an extent of 120 sq. yards and 1900 sq. yards totally admeasuring 2020 sq. yards in Sy.No.673 situated at Ursu Revenue Village, Warangal Mandal and District pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶25

Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: S.C. FOR KUDA

¶26

Gounsel for the Respondents No.3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH REDDY,

¶27

S.C. FOR WARANGAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

t t

¶30

THT HON'BLT SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT No.1 of 2O15

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is liled challenging the action of respondents 2 and 3 in trying to lay the road through the western portion of the petitioners'plots to an extent 2o2o square yards in surwey no.673, situated at Ursu Revenue village, warangat Mandal and District, without initiating proceedings r:nder Land Acquisition Act and without issuing arry notice, as illegal, : arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶33

Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pasarn Mohith Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent.

¶34

\ \

¶35

karned Standing Counsel for 3'd respondent (Warangal Municipal corporation) would submit that the road abutting the subject lands was laid long ago and that no furttrer roadwidening works are presenfly being undertaken. He further submits that if the respondents take up further road.-widening project, they will follow the due process of I ^w.--

¶36

I^.-'.

¶37

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioners on instructions would submit that at present no road-widening works are being undertaken.

¶39

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3(Warangal Municipal Corporation), ttris Writ Petition is, disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners with regard to the subject property except in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that if the subject property or a portion of the subject proper$r of ttre petitioners is required for road widening project or any other public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to acquire the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed.

¶41

Sd/. A. SREENTVASA REDDY ASSTSTANT EEGTSTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// (9 SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

'l . The Princip_al^{-_S_ecretary,.} Municipal Administration Department, Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.'

¶44

The Mce-Chairman,_ Warangal, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, Warangal District, Telangana State.

¶45

S. Itrq.gogryissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal, Warangal Distric{, Telangana State.

¶46

One CC to SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ, Advocate tOpUCI

¶47

Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Develooment. Hioh Court for lhe State of Telanlana at Hyderabad. [OUTI ' C.--l e .

¶48

o. one cc^{to standing counsel for KUDA loPuc]} ' _ - "i -^!^ 'T.onecctosRlPASHAMMOHITH,scforwarangalMnniclpalGorporation) toPucl .t,, ./

¶49

Two CD CoPies.
-J**
<br>tsSI(MP

I f

HIGH COURT

1 HT. S
t
J,J
iJ
21 f {:8 7q7fi
* *

¶56

WP.No.14998 of 2015

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

TI<S

¶59

z+l,lza

Vanchanagiri Bixpathi S/o. Sarangapani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanchanagiri Bixpathi S/o. Sarangapani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aruna Ben, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Banda Balanarasimha, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

B. Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana.rep by its Principal Secretary to

K.Srinivas Vs Hmda,Metropolitan Commissioner,Hyd,Andanot

Sri. Muppavaram Madhusudhan Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

Golkonda Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana