The boundaries were allegedly drawn ignoring natural and historical demarcations such as major roads, canals and long-standing revenue limits.
Published Dec 16, 2025 | 9:55 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 16, 2025 | 9:55 PM
Delimitation of wards has put the GHMC in a spot of bother.
Synopsis: Concerns have been raised about the possible downstream effects of the reorganisation. Critics warned that funds might be diverted from existing divisions to newly merged areas, while residents in peripheral localities feared higher property taxes and civic charges.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has found itself in the eye of a storm after its ward delimitation exercise following the expansion of its territorial limits through the merger of 20 adjacent municipalities and seven corporations.
The exercise that proposed doubling the number of wards from 150 to 300 has triggered a chorus of objections from residents, political parties and legislators. They alleged arbitrariness, lack of transparency and disregard for established procedures.
A petition challenging the preliminary delimitation notification has been filed before the Telangana High Court.
Following the flood tide of objections, GHMC Mayor Gadwal Vijayalaxmi said she would forward the representations to the state government for action. She assured the GHMC corporators that they would be provided an opportunity to voice their opinions at a special session of the council on Tuesday, 16 December.
She received representations from MLAs Danam Nagender Arikepudi Gandhi, B Prakash, MLC Balmuri Venkat and several corporators.
The controversy erupted after the Telangana government issued a notification expanding the GHMC to absorb peripheral urban local bodies, effectively creating a sprawling municipal corporation covering the Telangana Core Urban Region.
The move followed an earlier merger aimed at streamlining urban administration and improving service delivery. To manage the enlarged civic canvas, the state approved a reorganisation of GHMC into 300 wards, along with proposals to increase the number of zones and circles—potentially to 12 zones and 60 circles—in a bid to tighten administrative grip and improve governance.
In line with this restructuring, GHMC issued a preliminary delimitation notification on 9 December, inviting objections and suggestions from the public within a seven-day window.
Reception centres were set up across the city to collect feedback, and 1,300 objections were received by mid-December. Civic authorities maintained that all valid objections would be examined and incorporated before finalising the ward boundaries.
However, criticism, cutting across party lines, has been both sharp and widespread. Residents and petitioners alleged that the new ward boundaries were arbitrary and unscientific. The boundaries were allegedly drawn ignoring natural and historical demarcations such as major roads, canals and long-standing revenue limits.
One complaint, now part of a court petition, pointed to areas being stitched together across a 30-foot canal and a 100-foot road, branding the exercise as “political drama” rather than part of a rational urban planning.
In a rare display of unity, the Congress, BRS and the BJP jointly objected to the exercise. The party representatives met the GHMC Commissioner and demanded greater transparency and wider consultations.
BRS leaders went a step further and termed the process “illegal and unconstitutional. They alleged that the proposal was neither placed before the GHMC General Body nor discussed with ex officio members, such as MLAs and MPs.
Concerns have also been raised about the possible downstream effects of the reorganisation. Critics warned that funds might be diverted from existing divisions to newly merged areas, while residents in peripheral localities feared higher property taxes and civic charges.
Uneven voter distribution and confusion over ward maps added to the unease. Resident Welfare Associations sought an extended deadline to register objections, allowing meaningful participation.
Specific divisions, including Ramnagar, have emerged as flashpoints. Objections centred on boundary alterations and renaming proposals that residents said were pushed through without addressing representations already submitted.
The Telangana High Court would now deal with the fallout. C Vinay Kumar, a resident of Chikkadpally, contested changes to the Ramnagar division and claimed that objections submitted on 12 December were ignored.
On 15 December, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy heard initial arguments in the matter as a lunch-motion petition. The court observed that delimitation was “essentially an administrative exercise” with “very limited scope for judicial interference,” noting that the grounds raised appeared prima facie weak.
Nevertheless, the matter was posted for 16 December further hearing.
The delimitation exercise has been seen as a precursor to the long-pending GHMC elections, lending it added political sensitivity.
GHMC officials insisted that the purely administrative exercise was aimed at improving governance in an expanded city, and that objections were being examined expeditiously.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
