GHMC Gets Nod to Acquire Church Land for Amberpet Flyover

Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC to proceed with partial land acquisition to complete a disputed flyover project in Amberpet, despite opposition from a local church. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Shalem Bible Church located at Golnaka. The petitioner was challenging the GHMC’s decision to acquire a portion of the church land for the project. The church, a longstanding institution in the community, argued that it was instructed by the authorities in June 2017 to hand over 94.2 square yards of land. The petitioner alleged discrimination, contending that other religious structures along the flyover route, such as temples and dargahs and graveyards, had been exempted from demolition, leaving only the church for potential destruction. The petitioner claimed that the civic body took the decision unilaterally and called for a realignment of the flyover to protect its structure. The petitioner contended that the church lacked official ownership documents but had maintained possession of the land for decades. According to the petitioner, compensation amounting to `1 crore was paid to unofficial respondents, while the church was left out of the discussions and compensation processes. Counsel for the unofficial respondents presented a document from 1964 purportedly proving official ownership of the disputed land, which may weaken the church’s claim. The judge after hearing both the sides instructed the GHMC to continue construction while respecting the integrity of the main church structure. The judge permitted demolition of the compound wall and acquiring the property’s front portion, with instructions to carefully remove the cross at the church. The judge deferred a decision regarding the remainder of the property to a later date.

HC to hear writ on spy camera regime

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will examine the regulations relating to the sale of spy cameras by various authorities. The court would do so in the context of a PIL filed for a direction to frame special guidelines or restrictions with regard to the rampant sale of spy cameras, both online and offline. Heaven Homes Society, Hyderabad, complained that the uncontrolled and unregimented sale of such cameras would be a serious affront to the right to privacy. The petitioner contended that the microscopic spy cameras have no known use and could be fitted anywhere in private and public places without anyone’s knowledge. The petitioner alleged that there was an imminent danger for women from illegal spy cameras that are readily available and at are affordable. It was also alleged that photographs and videos captured by spy cameras were later moved to online pornography sites without the victims’ knowledge, which could also prove fatal. The panel, considering the allegations, posted the matter for final hearing in January.

HC to hear encroachments of village land

A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court took on file a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the action of the Rangareddy district collector and other authorities in not protecting gramakantam land situated at Bachupally village in Kandukur mandal, from encroachers. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a PIL filed by Kandukuri Srinivas and four others, agriculturists residing in Bachupally village. The petitioners alleged that the unofficial respondents were land-grabbers. Despite repeated written representations, the official respondent authorities failed to take any action against them. The petitioners also alleged that their then sarpanch had created a revision register with no jurisdiction or authorisation from any law or authority, collected taxes from the unofficial respondents, and allotted house numbers to blocks of the land. The petitioners contended that the unofficial respondents were claiming wrongful possession of the land by relying upon the revision register. The panel, after hearing counsel for the petitioners, and the government pleader, directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.

Compensation formula under HC scanner

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court sought a clarification from the GHMC as to whether the owners of commercial property were entitled to the rehabilitation and resettlement package under the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Shareen Hajira and another seeking compensation for their properties acquired for road widening purposes by the government. The petitioners alleged that compensation for the land acquired was not paid to them and thus the acquisition was illegal and violated their rights under the Act. The judge observed that when land having shops and establishments was acquired, the person running the shop was awarded the rehabilitation and resettlement package, whereas the owners of the building were awarded compensation only to the extent of the structures. Observing the conundrum, the judge sought a response from the respondent authorities to understand who is entitled to receive the rehabilitation and resettlement package. The judge posted the matter for further adjudication.