In a significant procedural shift, the High Court of Telangana has held that disputes involving encroachment on public roads affecting property access must be resolved through mediation before judicial intervention. This order underscores the judiciary’s growing preference for alternative dispute resolution in civil matters where constitutional rights intersect with municipal governance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, alleged that the 6th respondent, Smt. G.V. Uma Anshuman, had illegally encroached upon a public road and approach path leading to his property in Survey No. 33 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. The encroachment involved the installation of tin sheets and a shed, obstructing lawful access to the petitioner’s plot. Despite submitting a formal representation on 22.04.2021 to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and its subordinate officers, no action was taken to remove the obstruction.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking:
- A declaration that the inaction of respondents 2 to 4 (GHMC and its officers) was illegal and arbitrary
- A writ of mandamus directing removal of the encroachment
- Relief under Article 14 (equality) and Article 300-A (right to property)
The respondents included the State of Telangana, GHMC, its officials, and the police station, all of whom filed responses denying negligence or attributing delay to procedural complexities.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate removal of the encroachment and accountability from municipal authorities for failing to enforce urban planning norms. He argued that the continued obstruction violated his constitutional right to access his property and amounted to state inaction in breach of public duty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dispute over encroachment on a public road affecting private property access warrants immediate judicial intervention under Article 226, or whether mediation should be exhausted first as a matter of procedural prudence and constitutional efficiency.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri Akkam Eshwar, contended that the respondents’ inaction constituted a clear violation of Article 14 and Article 300-A. He cited precedents where courts had intervened to remove illegal encroachments on public pathways, arguing that municipal authorities have a non-discretionary duty to enforce building and land use regulations. He emphasized that the petitioner had exhausted all administrative remedies by submitting a written representation, and further delay would cause irreparable harm.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleaders for the State and GHMC acknowledged the existence of the encroachment but argued that removal required survey, notice, and due process under the Telangana Municipal Corporations Act. They contended that judicial intervention at this stage would bypass statutory procedures and set a precedent for premature writs in quasi-administrative matters. The 6th respondent’s counsel maintained that the structure was not an illegal encroachment but a lawful extension, and that the petitioner’s access claim was exaggerated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the pleadings and the nature of the dispute. It noted that while the petitioner’s constitutional rights were invoked, the core issue was not one of arbitrary state action but a localized civil conflict over land access. The Court observed that the matter did not involve large-scale public harm or systemic failure, but rather a private dispute exacerbated by municipal inaction.
"The dispute is only regarding access to the plot of the petitioner in Survey No.33 of Khanamet Village... and does not involve any large-scale violation of public interest or systemic failure by the authorities."
The Court emphasized that Article 226 is not meant to be the first resort in cases where alternative, less adversarial mechanisms exist. It referenced the Supreme Court’s consistent direction in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India that courts must encourage mediation in civil disputes to reduce litigation burden and promote amicable resolution.
The Court further held that the constitutional rights invoked - Article 14 and Article 300-A - do not automatically trigger judicial intervention when the remedy lies in a structured, neutral process like mediation. The appointment of a retired High Court judge as mediator ensured impartiality and legal competence, while the four-week timeline and cost-sharing mechanism ensured procedural seriousness.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s prayer for a writ of mandamus was denied. The Court held that mediation is the appropriate first step in resolving disputes over private access affected by public encroachments, provided no immediate threat to life or safety exists. The matter was referred to a retired judge for mediation, with both parties directed to contribute Rs. 1,00,000 each and appear before the mediator on 31.01.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mediation Is Presumptively Required for Access Disputes
- Practitioners must now consider mediation before filing writ petitions under Article 226 in cases involving private access blocked by encroachments on public land
- Courts are likely to dismiss petitions outright if mediation is not attempted, unless there is evidence of imminent danger or gross municipal negligence
- The burden shifts to petitioners to demonstrate why mediation is inadequate before seeking judicial intervention
Constitutional Rights Do Not Bypass Procedural Prudence
- Invoking Article 14 or Article 300-A does not automatically convert a civil land dispute into a constitutional emergency
- Courts will examine whether the dispute is truly about state arbitrariness or merely administrative delay
- This judgment reinforces that constitutional remedies are not substitutes for civil remedies when alternatives exist
Municipal Accountability Must Be Proven, Not Alleged
- Petitioners must provide documentary proof of prior representations and municipal inaction
- General allegations of "non-action" without dates, acknowledgments, or follow-ups will not suffice
- This case sets a new threshold: administrative remedies must be exhausted with evidence, not just asserted
