The Telangana High Court on Tuesday suspended a notice that Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) had issued to Sri Sneha BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited objecting to a compound wall the society had built on land allotted to it. The notice accused the society’s members of working against its interests.
BHEL threatened the members of the society with stoppage of medical benefits to retired employees and disciplinary action against serving employees as per the conduct, discipline, and appeal rules if the wall was not taken down within three days of the receipt of its notice.
A bench of Justice T Madhavi Devi suspended the notice dated July 15, 2025 while dealing with a petition filed by the society, comprising both retired and serving employees of BHEL, seeking quashing of the order that it argued was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and (g), 21, 300A, and 311 of the Constitution of India.
The case stems from a land alienation process and demarcation of its boundary in Mumanoor village in Sangareddy district’s Ramachandrapuram area. The society was allotted 3.31 acres of land here and it was registered through a sale deed in favour of the society on August 19, 2017. When the society initiated steps to raise a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, BHEL objected. The society then approached the assistant director of survey and land records, requesting official demarcation of boundaries allotted to it, but in vain.
The housing society members then moved the high court, which ordered a survey. The survey, conducted on June 11, corroborated the boundaries and the extent of land as recorded in the sale deed. The society contended that the wall construction started after the survey was completed and boundaries were fixed, but that BHEL was unlawfully interfering in the activity and misusing its position as the employer of several members of the society.
Mayur Mundra, the counsel for the society, argued that the notice was arbitrary and illegal as the society members were protecting the land allotted to the society and that BHEL cannot coerce them to follow its instructions when the land is allotted to the society. He further argued that the members’ retirement benefits and medical benefits cannot be curtailed to put pressure on them to follow BHEL’s “whimsical demands”.
The judge questioned the BHEL counsel how the members’ actions would go against the interest of the society and said that “such a notice could not have been issued as it amounted to violation of fundamental rights”.
