Telangana High Court Upholds GHMC's Authority to Acquire Property Through Agreement
The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant ruling by refusing to strike down Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act, 1955. This provision enables the civic body to acquire immovable properties in public interest through a mutual agreement between the property owner and the corporation.
Court's Decision on Constitutional Challenge
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin passed the order while disposing of a petition that had challenged the provision as unconstitutional. The petitioner argued that Section 146 conflicted with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The petitioner, a businessman owning property at Beerappagadda in Uppal, Hyderabad, contended that the GHMC provision violated constitutional principles and was inconsistent with the 2013 central land acquisition law. The case originated from a notice dated February 9, 2026, issued to the 79-year-old petitioner, directing him to hand over physical possession of a portion of his property to the GHMC and provide consent under Section 146 in public interest.
Key Observations and Legal Reasoning
The court meticulously examined Section 146 and concluded that, on a plain reading, it deals exclusively with the acquisition of immovable property by agreement and does not grant any power of compulsory acquisition to the GHMC. The bench emphasized that land can only be acquired based on a mutual agreement between the owner and the corporation, with appropriate compensation provided in return.
Furthermore, the bench held that it was not convinced by the petitioner's argument regarding legislative competence or overlap with the 2013 central law. The court observed that Section 146 does not constitute an exercise of the state's power to forcibly acquire private land. Therefore, the challenge based on repugnancy—or contradiction with central legislation—could not be accepted.
Notice-Specific Grievances and Future Recourse
In its ruling, the court also addressed the specific notice issued to the petitioner. It noted that if the petitioner believed the GHMC notice amounted to forced acquisition contrary to Section 146, he was free to approach the appropriate court or forum to challenge the notice directly. This clarification ensures that individual grievances related to specific acquisition notices can be addressed separately without undermining the validity of the statutory provision itself.
The court's decision reinforces the legal framework governing property acquisition in Hyderabad, balancing public interest with property rights through agreed-upon transactions rather than compulsory measures.
