R. VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing plot No.22, D.No.8-2-351, 1/22, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Petitioner is aggrieved by the constructs of foot over bridge, opposite to his house adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner. According to petitioner, he had plot of a size of 730 square yards; earlier Government took over 170 square yards of his property for widening of the road and a result, he is left with 560 square yards of plot; this plot has access to main road as well as 40 feet byline road; has road facing frontage of 24 feet, whereas the proposed construction of foot over bridge adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner blocks access to the main road. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.Kesava 'Rao, learned standing counsel for GHMC for respondents 2 to 4, Sri V.V.Anil Kumar and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsels for the private respondents respectively.

(3.) Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar would submit that any property owner has a right of access to the main road to the entire extent of the property and the right of frontage. This right is sought to be affected on account of decision of the respondents to construct a foot over bridge on Road No.3 of Banjara Hills in front of property of the petitioner. No such right can be taken away without following due process. The decision to construct a foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner occupying 18 meters of frontage space on the road facing of the property thereby curtailing the access to the property only to an extent of 6 meters could not have been made without putting the petitioner on notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without compensating for the loss caused to the petitioner. Road No.3 is a busy area and there are several commercial properties and there is huge demand for commercial space. However, the property will have greater value if it is having wider frontage to main road. On account of construction of foot over bridge, the value of the property would diminish. He would therefore submit that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner has adverse civil and evil consequences and whenever £ decision of the authority results in evil and civil consequences, it is mandatory to follow due process of law before affecting such right. On this ground alone the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal.