Court Halts KBR Park Road Expansion Over Legal Procedure Concerns
The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant interim relief to 21 property owners in Banjara Hills by granting a two-week stay on land acquisition notices issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for the expansion of roads around KBR National Park.
In a hearing held on Tuesday, Justice N V Shravan Kumar observed that the acquisition process requires further examination and prima facie appears to have procedural deficiencies. The court specifically noted that the notifications were not published in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Legal Challenge Against Acquisition Process
The property owners, located on Road No. 12 in the upscale Banjara Hills area, had approached the court challenging the notices served to them on September 18 and October 1, 2025. They contended that GHMC failed to comply with mandatory due process requirements under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act.
Senior Advocate P Raghu Ram, representing the petitioners, made a compelling argument before the court. He submitted that the Section 11 notification was not traceable online and unavailable as a gazette on official websites, making it impossible for property owners to be aware of the acquisition process and exercise their right to object.
The legal challenge highlighted that unless proper notice is given to all affected parties, they cannot participate effectively in the objection process or the enquiry scheduled for November 19 at the GHMC special deputy collector's office.
History of the Land Acquisition Dispute
The dispute has a longer history than the recent notices suggest. According to court submissions, GHMC first issued notices to property owners in 2023, stating that it had undertaken road development projects to improve connectivity from Virinchi Hospital to Jubilee Hills Check Post and from Maharaja Agrasen Junction to Jubilee Hills Check Post via KBR Park.
At that time, owners were asked to submit ownership documents, but the petitioners claim these initial notices did not mention the relevant legal provisions or rules governing the acquisition process.
The situation escalated in July 2024 when GHMC issued another notice under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, requesting consent and handover of the affected portions for the proposed 100-foot road.
The court noted that some petitioners received notices in October 2025, allegedly following publication of notifications dated August 22 that stated objections to land acquisition must be made within 60 days of publication under Section 11(1).
Court's Observations and Next Steps
Justice Kumar made significant observations during the hearing, stating that the entire notification process needs examination. The bench specifically noted that apparently, notices were not issued to all affected parties, thereby preventing them from putting forth their objections.
The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioners, who argued that the notifications violated multiple sections of the 2013 Act, including Section 11(1)(b), (c), (d), (e) and Section 11(3).
While the standing counsel for GHMC and Telangana government authorities sought time to get instructions in the matter, the court proceeded to grant the interim relief. Justice Kumar explicitly stayed the notifications issued in September and October concerning the acquisition stretch for a period of two weeks.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on November 24, when the court will examine the legality of the acquisition process in greater detail. The interim stay provides temporary protection to the property owners while allowing the court to thoroughly examine whether GHMC followed the prescribed legal procedures for land acquisition.
