Telangana High Court Quashes GHMC's 2014 Demolition Notice Over Alleged 'Village Road' Blockage
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court on Tuesday quashed an 11-year-old demolition notice issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) against a gated community on Hyderabad's outskirts. The court found that GHMC failed to produce any evidence of a public thoroughfare that the community's boundary wall was allegedly obstructing.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The case centered on a notice issued by the GHMC commissioner in December 2014, directing residents of Prestige Dream Valley in Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, to remove their boundary wall. GHMC claimed the wall was blocking a "village road" connecting Shivarampally village to the Inner Ring Road.
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty set aside the notice, observing that "the impugned notice as well as the counter filed on behalf of the respondent-GHMC is silent as to how the Commissioner came to conclusion that there is existence of village road connecting Shivarampally with Inner Ring Road in the absence of any material such as Village map/Zonal development plan."
Long-Standing Legal Battle
The legal dispute dates back to January 2014 when GHMC first issued a notice to the Prestige Dream Valley Residents Welfare Association regarding the allegedly obstructing wall. Despite residents providing a layout refuting the road's existence, GHMC's demolition squad pulled down the wall in October 2014 without serving a formal notice or responding to their representation.
Following a writ petition, the court initially directed GHMC to restore the wall within two weeks while allowing the corporation to re-examine the issue legally under Section 406 of the GHMC Act. This led to a second notice in December 2014, which residents again challenged.
Court's Critical Observations
During hearings, the Association's counsel argued that GHMC rushed the new notice without proving the road's existence on any official map. GHMC countered that they had reviewed residents' explanations but rejected them because the Association lacked specific permission for a gated layout or boundary wall.
The court noted that petitioners categorically denied the existence of a road connecting Shivarampally village to the Inner Ring Road, and therefore, there was no question of blocking it by constructing a compound wall. The bench observed that GHMC, in its counter, merely disputed petitioners' claims without providing any Zonal Development Plan or village map showing such a road.
Final Ruling and Implications
In its concluding remarks, the court held that GHMC's action of issuing the impugned notice without supporting material was "contrary to the facts and not tenable." The court further noted that GHMC, except for observing that petitioners' explanations couldn't be considered, "has not recorded proper reasons for rejecting the same."
The writ petition was subsequently allowed, bringing closure to an 11-year legal battle that highlighted the importance of documentary evidence in urban planning disputes. This ruling underscores the necessity for municipal authorities to maintain proper records and follow due process before issuing demolition notices against residential properties.
