Telangana high court orders GHMC to submit masterplan

Hyderabad: In an effort to get clarity about Errum Manzil amid differing claims, the Telangana High Court on Friday asked for the map of the Hyderabad Master Plan-2031, which contains coloured markings about residential, commercial, conservation and other categories.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Shameem Akther, while dealing with PILs against the proposed demolition of Errum Manzil, wanted the master plan to get confirmation whether the Errum Manzil building and the precinct were marked as ‘Special Reservation Zone’ (S1).

Also on Friday, roads and buildings engineer-in-chief Ganapathi Reddy  appeared before the bench and said that up to 25 acres was required to construct the new legislative complex, which would include the Assembly hall, the Council hall, a Central hall and residential buildings for the Speaker and Chairman, and other high-ranking officials. He said the plan was under preparation.

Justice Chauhan asked whether the 18-acre area of the existing Assembly building and surroundings were not enough to host the legislature.

Mr Nalini Kumar, counsel for the Deccan Archaeological & Cultural Research Institute, who raised the crucial point that the government had to take approval from HMDA to deal with Errum Manzil, gave a rejoinder to the government’s contentions.

The Counsel said Regulation 1.11.1 of the Urban Development Act, 1975 specifically provided that the government should obtain specific clearance from the HMDA, after consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee,  before undertaking certain kinds of development and redevelopment work at notified heritage buildings, precincts and the area earmarked in the Master Plan. Following this, the Chief Justice called for the master plan.

The Counsel also informed the court about Regulation 1.11.10, which provides for land use in the special reservation zone and about Metropolitan Development Master Plan – 2031, which earmarked the land use of the heritage buildings (S1), where no development activity was permitted in the zone, unless it was in conformity with the Master Develop-ment Plan and HMDA Zoning Regulations. The court adjourned the hearing to Tuesday.