Telangana HC Seeks Report on Action Against Illegal Constructions near Monuments

Hyderabad: A bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Tukaramji of teh Telangana High Court directed the office of the Advocate General to file a detailed report on the action taken on illegal constructions in and around monuments. The bench was dealing with a batch of PILs questioning inaction against illegal constructions in and around monuments in the state. Counsel appearing from the office of the Advocate General informed that earlier they were asked to file status reports regularly. Counsel sought time as a report was not filed for the past year. Counsel for a resident of Golkonda fort, the unofficial respondent, informed the bench that due to the stay on construction, they were facing certain difficulties that included repair works of water connection. The bench reiterated that the interest of the larger public would be considered and not of any individual, especially when the question is about historical monuments of the country. The bench adjourned the batch of PILs by four weeks.

Notice to revenue official on lake land grab

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji ordered notices to the revenue principal secretary and others in a contempt case filed by one A. Anju Kumar Reddy. He had earlier approached the court alleging encroachment of Kotha Cheruvu (Naya Talab) in Nirmal. The court had directed the authorities to fence the area of the full tank level of the lake and ensure that there was no encroachment. The bench added that if any encroachment by way of road was made, the same shall be kept in abeyance till the next date. The petitioner contended that no action was seen forthcoming. The government pleader sought some time for the officials to enable them to engage counsel. He informed the court that an application was filed to vacate the order, which is pending. The bench remarked that officials cannot dodge orders by stating that a vacate petition was pending. The bench while ordering notice to the other respondents reiterated the order and directed that any violation would be dealt with regressively. The bench will hear the matter on July 25.

HC questions NGO’s status to file PIL

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday took on file a public interest litigation complaining about illegal conversion and construction on agricultural land and on water bodies at Singapur village, Shankarpally. The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji was hearing a PIL filed by an NGO, Shanth Mahila Kosh. NGO president Farida Sultana complained that landgrabbers were illegally constructing structures and the authorities were not taking action. The bench wondered if the property was not government land, and what made petitioners file a PIL and questioned their locus. The bench questioned as to how the PIL was maintainable without making the landowners a party. The petitioners sought time to permit them to amend the petition and add necessary parties to the petition and the bench agreed. However, the Registry’s objection of public interest involved is yet to be decided. The bench will again hear the matter on August 4.

HC tells GHMC to give pensioner benefits

Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC commissioner to release retirement benefits to a pump operator, D. Ramachandraiah. The petitioner complained that authorities had withheld his retirement benefits alleging pendency of disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The petitioner informed the court that he was acquitted of all the charges The judge pointed out that there was no valid reason to withhold the retirement benefits and ordered the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner within four weeks.

Order reserved on plea on Sarfaesi Act

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court reserved orders in a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Sarfaesi) Act. The bench comprising Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheempaka was hearing a writ plea filed by Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd, challenging the provisions of the Act as ultra vires and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Senior counsel B.S. Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that it was unjust and discriminatory to prescribe a mandatory pre-deposit of 50 per cent before the appellate tribunal even when an interlocutory order was challenged under Section 18 of the Sarfaesi Act. He contended that it must be struck down as being unreasonable and discriminatory. The bench after hearing the submissions made by both sides reserved its judgment.