No proof of ‘village road’: Telangana High Court quashes GHMC 2014 notice to demolish gated community’s boundary wall

The case centred on the notice issued by the GHMC commissioner directing the residents of Prestige Dream Valley in Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, to remove a boundary wall. GHMC alleged that the wall was blocking a “village road” that supposedly connected Shivarampally village to the Inner Ring Road.

Wall demolished, rebuilt by GHMC on court orders

A notice regarding the wall allegedly blocking the road was first issued to the petitioners, Prestige Dream Valley Residents Welfare Association, in January 2014. Despite the residents providing a layout that refuted this, GHMC’s demolition squad pulled down the wall in October 2014 without serving a formal notice or responding to their representation.

The writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed, and the court directed GHMC to restore the wall within 2 weeks. However, the court allowed 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 the residents again challenged.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Association argued that GHMC rushed the new notice without proving the road actually existed on any official map. On their part, the GHMC’s counsel countered that they had reviewed the residents’ explanations but rejected them because the Association lacked specific permission to maintain a gated layout or a boundary wall.

‘Contrary to the facts and not tenable’

The Telangana High Court noted that the petitioners have categorically denied the existence of a road connecting Shivarampally village to the Inner Ring Road, and, as such, there is no question of blocking it by constructing a compound wall. The court also noted that GHMC, in its counter, has merely disputed the petitioner’s claims, and failed to place any Zonal Development Plan or village map showing the existence of such a road.

In conclusion, the court held that GHMC’s action of issuing the impugned notice in the absence of any such material on record was “contrary to the facts and not tenable”. The court further observed that GHMC in the impugned notice, except observing that the explanation offered by the petitioners cannot be considered, and “has not recorded proper reasons for rejecting the same.”

Subsequently, the writ petition was allowed.