Telangana HC questions state's take on land conversion

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court wondered how the state government could insist upon land conversion as a matter of course. In the vacation court, Justice Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Synyes Sabu LLP, a partnership firm which had purchased 3.13 acres in Kondapur. The sub-registrar refused to register the property relying upon a memo from the commissioner. The memo required the authorities to verify in detail any transaction involving huge lands and being alienated in square yards. In such cases, the government also required a non-agricultural land conversion. The judge pointed out that in the case on hand the memo did not apply since the land was sold in acreage and not in square yards, In any event, there was no power vested in the government to insist upon converting land into non-agricultural land.

HC stays demolition of 270 dwelling units

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court stayed the demolition of over 270 dwelling units at Vivekanandanagar in Kukatpally. A similar order with regard to 398 dwelling houses was made by the judge. The judge heard two writ petitions filed by occupants of the dwelling units who said they were in undisturbed possession of the dwelling houses in question for over two to three decades. They alleged that under the guise of providing 2BHK houses the government was threatening to dispossess them. It was pointed out that the government undertook to give them transit accommodation which became part of a court order in August 2018. Senior counsels pointed out that in utter disregard to the undertaking and in violation of law, the government was acting in a partisan and illegal manner. “Rob Peter to pay Paul is an inexplicable stance of the government,” senior counsel said.

HC suspends railways' order cancelling project

T. Vinod Kumar suspended the order of the railways cancelling the work extended to Sanyu Infra Projects. The judge admitted a writ plea filed by the contractors. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round, a division bench found that the authorities had failed to follow procedure while terminating the contract. The bench directed the petitioners to approach the authorities afresh and explain their stance on the stated reasons for cancellation. According to the petitioners, by the order impugned in the writ petition, no opportunity was given in the manner prescribed and the authorities rejected the explanation of the contractor mechanically. The judge faulted the railways for its tardy decision-making process and suspended the order of cancellation.