High Court orders response on Miryalaguda-Huzurnagar road widening irregularities

The Telangana High Court on Thursday, June 11, 2026, directed the state government to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging irregularities in a road-widening project along the Miryalaguda–Huzurnagar main road in Suryapet district. The PIL, filed by a 97-year-old freedom fighter, alleges that authorities have failed to remove unauthorized structures and statues along the stretch.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, ordered the Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings to obtain instructions from the competent authorities. The state government must now present details regarding the unremoved unauthorized structures and statues on the public road.

The petitioner, Bandla Pulla Reddy, is a 97-year-old freedom fighter residing in Garidepalli village within Suryapet district. His petition raises concerns over the execution of the road-widening project, which stretches from the Miryalaguda–Huzurnagar main road up to the Ayyappa Swamy Temple and proceeds onwards to Alangipur village.

According to the counsel representing the petitioner, the authorities deviated from the approved alignment of the project. Instead of widening the road uniformly from the existing centre line, the government authorities are allegedly expanding the road by approximately 10 feet on only one side. The petitioner argued that this uneven expansion was done under the guise of protecting certain institutions, resulting in losses for a specific section of local landowners.

To resolve this, the petitioner requested the court to direct the authorities to widen the road equally by five feet on both sides of the centre line, thereby maintaining a uniform width.

Additionally, the petition pointed out that several unauthorized statues and structures have been erected on government land adjacent to the road. The petitioner stated that despite sending multiple representations to the administration, officials failed to clear these encroachments. The petition argued that leaving these structures intact violates the guidelines established by the Supreme Court as well as previous orders passed by the High Court.

After hearing the initial arguments, the High Court Bench adjourned the matter for two weeks to allow the state government to submit its response.