Telangana High Court
Mohd Mir Laiq Ali vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WP.No.12081 of 2014
Between:
Mohd. Mir Laiq Ali,
S/o Mir Iqbal Ali
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Department of Municipal Administration
and Urban Development, reptd by its
Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and two others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.11.2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
2
LNA, J
WP.No.12081 of 2014
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WP.No.12081 of 2014
% 06.11.2025
Between:
# Mohd. Mir Laiq Ali,
S/o Mir Iqbal Ali
.... Petitioner
And:
$ The State of Telangana,
Department of Municipal Administration
and Urban Development, reptd by its
Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and two others.
....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Surendra Desai
^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy
? Cases Referred:
1. 2001 (2) ALT 662 (FB)
2. Order dated 20.01.2015 in WP.No.37983 of 2014
3. (2003) 2 SCC 111
4. (2022) 5 AIR Bom R 803
3
LNA, J
WP.No.12081 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WP.No.12081 of 2014
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the
land of the petitioner to an extent of 126.25 square meters in Plot
No.135, situated at Masid Banda in Sy.No.192 of Kondapur
Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide
proceedings No.RW/TPS/Cir-XI/GHMC/2012, dated 01.06.2013,
of respondent No.3, without following the procedure prescribed
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the L.A.Act')
read with A.P. Amendment Act, 2008, as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently, to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay
compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired by initiating
proceedings under the L.A. Act.
2. Heard Sri Suderndra Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC.
3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, as narrated in the
affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that he is the owner
LNA, J
and occupier of residential Plot admeasuring 550 square yards
bearing Nos.128 and 135, situated in Sy.No.192 (Masid Banda) of
Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
having purchased the same from one Kodicherla Mallesha under
registered sale deed, dated 25.07.1991. While so, respondent No.3
issued a letter dated 01.06.2013, to the petitioner stating that in the
proposed road widening from HCU Bus stop to Botanical gardens
via Masjeed Banda, the plot of the petitioner to an extent of 112.8
square meters would be affected, for which, he would be given
concessions as prescribed in GO.Ms.No.279, Municipal
Administration, dated 01.04.2008. That the petitioner, having
found that the concessions given as per the said GO are not
beneficial to him, got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2013 calling
upon the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under
the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquiring his land said to be
affected in road widening. But, as there was no response from the
respondents, the petitioner again got issued another notice dated
13.01.2014, however, there was no response from the respondents.
It is further averred that on 22.02.2014, the petitioner found some
digging mark and cementing work in his land and therefore, he
LNA, J
filed the present Writ Petition challenging the action of the
respondents in encroaching his land without following due process
of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the subject property and a part of his land
is said to be affected in road widening. He further submitted that
petitioner cannot be forced or compelled to accept for acquisition
of his property under the guise of a Government Order, without
paying compensation to him as per the prevailing market value by
duly following the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner
relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in M/s Ushodaya Publications, Eeenadu Complex,
Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, MCH and another 1.
6. In the said judgment, the question that fell for consideration
is whether the consent given by the landlady for acquisition of the
property without giving notice or opportunity to the lessee is
binding on the lessee and the said point was answered in negative.
2001 (2) ALT 662 (FB)
LNA, J
7. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are
entirely distinct and hence, the ratio laid down in the said judgment
is not applicable to the instant case.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon the judgment
dated 20.01.2015 passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in W.P.No.37983 of 2014 {Usha Rani Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and three others}
wherein, a learned single Judge allowed Writ Petition directing the
respondent therein-Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority
to initiate proceedings as per the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for acquisition of the
entire land owned by the petitioner therein for road widening and
pay compensation to her, while observing as hereunder:-
"Section 146 of the GHMC Act contemplates acquisition of
immovable property by agreement between the
Commissioner and the owner of the land in the event the
said land is required by the Corporation; and when he is
unable to do so, Section 147 of the GHMC Act provides for
acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended from time to time. The
provision in Rule 16(a) of the Rules, which states that
unless the area affected in road widening as per the
LNA, J
statutory plan/master plan road or Circulation network is
surrendered free of cost, no development permission shall
be given, in my opinion, is ultra vires provisions of the
GHMC Act. Rule 16(a) of the Rules is not in accordance
with the GHMC Act, and is contrary to Section 146/Section
147 thereof. It is settled law that in case of conflict between
delegated legislation and its parent substantive Act, the
latter would prevail (See Novva Ads vs. Deptt. of Municipal
Admn. And Water Supply [4] ). Therefore, the provision
requiring land owner to surrender land free of cost merely
because a portion of the land owned by him is shown as
road affected in a statutory plan/master plan or circulation
network or as required to be widened as per road
development plan is ultra vires provision of the GHMC Act.
Such compulsory deprivation of property without paying
any compensation violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India. The respondents' conduct amounts to
coercing the petitioner to part with her property without
acquisition. In my opinion, it would be unjust to make the
petitioner to suffer in this manner."
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents-Corporation contended that the Government would
pay concessions to the petitioner as per GO.Ms.No.279, Municipal
Administration Department, dated 01.04.2008, to the extent of his
land affected in road widening and therefore, the petitioner would
not be put to any loss financially. He further submitted that the
LNA, J
respondents have in fact addressed a letter dated 01.06.2013 to the
petitioner to the said effect and therefore, the action of the
respondents proposing to acquire the petitioner's land for road
widening cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary and hence, the
Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Apropos the submissions made by learned counsel for both
the parties, the point that arises for consideration is whether the
modes of acquisition provided under the provisions of the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, are at the choice of
either of the parties or only of the acquiring authority?
11. Section 146 of GHMC Act provides for acquisition of
immovable property required for public purpose by agreement. The
word 'agreement' denotes the express agreement between the
Corporation, represented by the Commissioner, and the land
owner/s thereof, with regard to acceptance of offer of TDR/FSI by
the land owner/s concerned.
12. Section 147 of the GHMC Act envisages the procedure to be
followed when immovable property cannot be acquired by
agreement. The said Section postulates that whenever the
Commissioner, representing the Corporation, is unable to acquire
LNA, J
the immovable property by agreement with the land owner/s
concerned, the same shall be acquired by following the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
13. For interpretation of Sections 146 and 147 of the GHMC
Act, the language employed in the said provisions needs to be
considered for knowing the legislative intent. The language
employed in the aforesaid provisions is plain and unambiguous, in
which case, the scope of legislation or the intention of the
legislature cannot be enlarged or changed (See the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana
Sugar Mill (Petitioner) Ltd 2).
14. In the case on hand, the respondent-Corporation proposed to
acquired the land belonging to the petitioner by giving him the
concessions as provided for in GO.Ms.No.279, MA, dated
01.04.2008, however, the petitioner declined to accept the offer of
respondents-Corporation with regard to such concessions and
called upon the respondents-Corporation to follow the procedure
contemplated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the
land belonging to him. Thus, there is no consensus between the
respondent-Corporation and the petitioner-land owner for invoking
(2003) 2 SCC 111
LNA, J
Section 146 of GHMC Act. In other words, there is no express
agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation,
whereunder the petitioner accepted the offer made by the
respondent-Corporation to extend the concessions as provided in
GO.Ms.No.279, dated 01.04.2008. Thus, the two essential
requirements, i.e., offer and acceptance, to constitute an agreement
are not satisfied in the instant case, which empowers the
respondent-Corporation to invoke Section 146 of the GHMC Act.
15. When a similar issue fell for consideration before a larger
Bench of High Court of Bombay in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others3, it was
held that the acquisition under Section 126(1)(a) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, has to be by
consensus between both the parties and not only at the option of the
Acquiring authority.
16. Section 146 of the GHMC Act is akin to Section 126(1) (a)
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and
therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely
applies to the case on hand.
(2022) 5 AIR Bom R 803
LNA, J
17. In the light of the foregoing reasons, discussion and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar
University's case (cited supra) and the judgment of larger Bench of
High Court of Bombay in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur's case (cited supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that for invoking Section 146 of the GHMC
Act, a consensus between the respondents-Corporation and
petitioner-land owner is mandatory and it is not at the option of the
acquiring authority alone. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be
foisted upon to accept the concessions provided for in
GOMs.No.279, dated 01.04.2008 and the respondent-Corporation
has to necessarily follow the due procedure contemplated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the subject land
belonging to the petitioner.
18. Subject to the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.
19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 06.11.2025
dr
