HYDRAA Restrained From Taking Action Against Construction Firm

 Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court restrained HYDRAA and others from taking precipitative action against N.V.N Constructions Pvt Ltd with regard to land admeasuring about 13.17 acres at Kukatpally village in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the construction firm, alleging that HYDRAA was trying to interfere and disturb the existing physical features of the land and threatening to demolish the same on the pretext that the land was in another survey number of Khanamet village, Edulakunta, Serilingampally. Zeeshan Adnan Mohammed, counsel for the petitioner, argued that a survey was undertaken on two earlier occasions and the authorities had found that there was no overlapping of any survey number of Khanamet with that of the adjacent land falling in Kukatpally. He argued that when authorities intended to take action based on a purported survey conducted in 2014 wherein a finding was given that about 64 acres of land was overlapping between different survey numbers of Kukatpally and of Khanamet, the same was challenged by an independent writ petition. The High Court had then specifically observed that “the impugned survey report and any subsequent action in pursuance thereof are not binding on the petitioner to the extent of the land claimed by him and the respondents cannot claim any rights over the subject land, in any manner, whatsoever, basing on the said survey or survey report and interfere with the possession. The documents filed by the petitioner, more particularly, the earlier two survey reports, showed that there was no overlapping of land between Khanamet and Kukatpally, and the subject landfall in Kukatpally.” It was further held that only the collector, and not the survey department, who could decide and resolve the dispute with regard to overlapping of any survey number. That, without there being any valid decision of the collector with regard to overlapping of any survey number of one village with that of the adjacent village, the survey report, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is not binding on the petitioner and no person can claim any right under the said survey report. Zeeshan Mohammed argued that once the court had ruled in favour of the petitioner and restrained the state from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner, the state cannot again, by way of its instruments, more particularly HYDRAA, attempt to interfere with peaceful possession or threaten to demolish. He contended that the order was binding on all instruments and functionaries of the state irrespectively. Per contra, the GHMC argued that it was a mere apprehension of the petitioner that HYDRAA would disturb the existing physical features of the property. It contended that upon receiving a complaint that the petitioner was allegedly encroaching upon a tank, the GHMC officials had visited the premises but no action was taken yet. The corporation contended that it would follow due process of law before initiating any action. The judge, after hearing the parties at length, directed HYDRAA and other respondents not to take any precipitous action with regard to the land in Kukatpally and posted the matter for further adjudication.

Status quo on Fabcity land: HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered status quo with regard to 30 acres of land in Fabcity, special economic zone, of Raviryal in Rangareddy district. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Raju Vegesna Properties India Private Limited. Earlier, two writ petitions were dealt by the single judge wherein it was stated that Fabcity SPV India Pvt. Ltd (Fabcity SPV), a subsidiary of TSIIC, executed a lease deed in favour of XL Telecom and Energy Limited conveying lease-hold rights for 66 years in respect of the property for the establishment of integrated solar photovoltaic manufacturing facility, thereafter XI Telecom created a charge/mortgage on the leasehold rights in favour of SBICAPS Trustee Company Limited, for the purpose of financing the project and availed a loan from a consortium, headed by Canara Bank, for which Fabcity SPV had given a no-objection. It was stated that XL Telecom defaulted and Invent Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd initiated action under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (Sarfaesi Act). Thereafter, Invent ARC conducted a public auction of the scheduled property duly publishing sale notice, as per the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act and the allied rules. The petitioner participated in the public auction to establish a new world-class data centre in the property along with its group company and was declared as the highest bidder and a certificate of sale was issued. The petitioner made representations for mutations in the records to enable them to commence the work but as the same were in vain, the present writ petition was filed. Per contra, the respondents argued that there is no contract between petitioner and respondents, therefore the claim of the petitioner by virtue of the alleged transfer of lease was not accepted. In fact, the said transferor itself has no absolute right or title and ownership over the subject land and the transferor could not alienate, transfer better title or rights in favour of the petitioner. The judge dismissed the petition, observing that the Fabcity SPV came to the conclusion that transfer made by the Invent ARC to petitioner without the written permission of respondents and development commissioner, VSEZ, was not binding on the respondents and in violation to the lease deed. In the present appeal, it was contended that the order of the single judge was against the provisions of the Act. The panel after hearing the arguments ordered notices to Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and its subsidiary and posted the matter for further adjudication.

HC takes on file plea against revenue and forest depts.

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the actions of the state revenue department, forest department and other authorities in not taking steps to release 2400 acres of land in survey no. 7, situated in Mansoorabad village, Saroornagar mandal, Rangareddy district. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Boddu Raadha and 224 others, complaining that the respondent authorities were not taking steps to release land, which was in the custody of the state government as caretaker by the original pattedar Haneefa Bee. The petitioners alleged that the land was divided into small plots with an extent of 100 sq. yards and allotted to each petitioner by the legal heirs of Haneefa Bee by way of memorandum of gift. The petitioners alleged that in spite of the written representations followed by personal visits, the respondent authorities failed to release the land to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the actions of the respondent authorities were illegal and in violation of the Constitution. They sought a direction to the respondent authorities to release the land and to deliver its peaceful possession. The judge, after hearing the matter, directed the government pleader appearing for the state revenue department to get instructions on the actions taken on the written representation of the petitioners. The judge also recognised that a similar writ petition on the same subject was pending and directed to list both the writ pleas together on Thursday.

Writ against CCTV camera by neighbour

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy took on file a writ plea filed by a sexagenarian against non-removal of CCTV cameras allegedly installed in a manner that intruded his privacy. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Bhiram Sunil Kumar, a resident of Bhoodevinagar colony, Alwal. The petitioner complained that despite multiple objections to the cameras pointing directly at his home and others, no action was forthcoming from the authorities. T. Rahul, counsel for the petitioner, argued that despite repeated attempts since 2022 to address the issue, including requests to redirect the cameras, no action had been taken. He also argued that while the property on which the cameras are installed was owned by the unofficial respondents, their ownership did not grant them the right to infringe upon the privacy of the petitioner. After hearing the arguments, the court ordered notices and posted the matter for further adjudication.

HC to examine PF chief’s powers to demand damages from a non-employee

The Telangana High Court will examine the legality of actions of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhapur, in demanding interest and damages to an alleged non-employer. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy took on file a writ plea filed by Nuziveedu Swathi Coastal Consortium. The petitioner was challenging the action of the respondent in issuing a showcause notice even though the petitioner allegedly does not fall under the category of an employer under the Employees Provident Fund Act. The petitioner stated that he received the showcause notice demanding the interest and damages despite being deleted from execution of work contract by the Andhra Pradesh government and its authorities. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.