Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court modified an order of the single judge and ruled that excavation at Gandipet can be carried out by private construction firms only after obtaining the permission of the HMDA under the HMDA Act. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was disposing of an appeal filed by K. Sujatha against the HMDA and others. The appellant said that illegal construction activity and excavation were being carried out in Gandipet mandal. The appellant argued that the HMDA and Manikonda municipality had failed to consider her representation to take appropriate action against the unauthorised construction by Kedia Homes Private Limited, Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar and AGR Infra partnership firms. The respondent authorities contended that no construction activity was going on at Puppalguda in Gandipet mandal, except excavation work, and stated that representation of the petitioner was under examination. Earlier, a single judge held that Manikonda municipality ought to ensure that the private construction firms shall not carry out any construction other than excavation of soil without obtaining permission from the authorities. In appeal, it was also brought to the notice of the court that private firms were allowed to carry out excavation. It was under this pretext that they were carrying out illegal construction, the appellant said. However, the bench, while disposing of the appeal, modified the previous order and ruled that excavation can only be carried out with prior permission of the HMDA.
Implead forest in Vanasthalipuram nursery case: HC
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed impleading the forest department in a writ plea challenging the inaction of Vanasthalipuram police station in protecting the nursery at Saroornagar. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by V. Sunny Heracleas questioning the police failure to take action against miscreants who were trespassing into the Centre for Socio Culture and Environment Protection (CSCEP). The petitioner alleged that miscreants had broken open the CSCEP office and had stolen important documents after damaging the property without any reason. They had also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if he did not discontinue nursery activities. He alleged that he had made several representations to the forest department seeking to protect the nursery but in vain. The police said that an FIR was registered and after a thorough investigation it was found that the title of the property was in dispute and the petitioner was in illegal possession of it. They contended that a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking documentary evidence as regards the ownership title. After perusing the records, Justice Reddy said under the guise of social cause, developing a nursery on government land was illegal. The judge directed the petitioners to implead the forest department and directed the police to file their counter affidavit by February 7.
