HC Summons HMDA Estate Officer over Building Demolitions

 Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court summoned the estate officer of the HMDA, Serilimgampally, to be personally present in court on Thursday. Justice T. Vinod Kumar passed the order while hearing two writ petitions complaining that the officer was instrumental in proceeding to demolish their houses at Seriligampally in a high-handed manner. According to the petitioners, husband and wife, they are owners in possession and constructed one portion of the premises and were proceeding to construct the other with valid permission. The court noticed that there are multiple instances where the said officer is facing allegations of high-handed demolition of structures.

No trust motion: HC relegates appellants to single judge

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court relegated appellants to a single judge and said that it was open to them to seek review of an order that affected them but was made without hearing them. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar accordingly disposed of writ appeals filed by Kotha Durga Durgamma and another challenging an order of a single judge who earlier stayed the motion of No-Confidence moved against Sri Samala Buchi Reddy at the Boduppal Municipal Corporation. In his writ petition, Buchi Reddy contended that the relevant rules under the Municipality Rules required the District Collector to verify the signatures of the members who signed the form for the motion of No-Confidence with the signatures available in the municipal records. The single judge recorded that the verification was not carried out by the District Collector but the form for conduct of the Motion of No-confidence was based upon the verification by the Municipal Commissioner. The single judge, therefore, stayed the meeting for the motion of No-Confidence and posted the case to June 12. In the present appeals, Kotha Durga Durgamma and another contended that they were signatories to the No-Confidence. Senior counsel Ravinder Reddy pointed out that the single judge erred in passing an interim order without hearing the effective parties. The panel therefore relegated the parties back to the single judge permitting the appellants to raise all legal issues before the judge hearing the writ petition.