AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in similar circumstances, this Court passed order dated 21.07.2026 in WP.No.6421 of 2026 and batch and requested to pass similar order in the instant writ petition as well. The said submission is not opposed by the learned standing counsel for Cyberabad Municipal Corporation.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.07.2026 in WP.No.6421 of 2026 and batch as under:
"In the light of the above contentions, it may be noted that technical aspects cannot be decided in a writ petition. The petitioners are given liberty to submit a representation to the respondents No.2 and 3 ventilating their grievance that road widening work is taken up without properly adhering to the road median and leaving 75 feet on either side of the road. Such representation shall be submitted by the petitioners within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents No.2 and 3 shall conduct enquiry and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Till then, the respondent authorities shall not undertake demolition of the properties of the petitioners. This order, however, shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities for taking appropriate action for removal of encroachments made on public road and footpath."
The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.
Heard Mr. Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent - GHMC.
Learned standing counsel, on the basis of written instructions, submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court on mere apprehension and there is no cause of action. The site under reference is abutting 150 feet wide road which leads from Chandanagar to Ameenpur Village via Sridevi theatre. The centre of the 150 feet wide road is fixed as per the approved RDP leaving 75 feet on either side of the road. Further, 2.6 meters (8 feet 6 inches) wide Median is being constructed with 2 median walls at 1.3 meters (4 feet 3 inches) from the centre of the road on either side. Currently, only one side median wall is under construction and the other side medial wall will be constructed in due course. There is no deviation from the centre line and the right of way provided is 75 feet on either side from centre of the road. Further, 75 feet right of way on either side should measured from centre line of the road and not from the median wall.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that width of the road from the site of the petitioners is not properly measured and instead of taking 75 feet equally on two sides of the road, 85 feet road is earmarked on the eastern side and thereby leaving only 65 feet on the west of the road.
In the light of the above contentions, it may be noted that technical aspects cannot be decided in a writ petition. The petitioners are given liberty to submit a representation to the respondents No.2 and 3 ventilating their grievance that road widening work is taken up without properly adhering to the road median and leaving 75 feet on either side of the road. Such representation shall be submitted by the petitioners within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents No.2 and 3 shall conduct enquiry and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Till then, the respondent authorities shall not undertake demolition of the properties of the petitioners. This order, however, shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities for taking appropriate action for removal of encroachments made on public road and footpath.
The writ petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.