Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Friday suo-moto impleaded the department of irrigation in a writ plea alleging misrepresentation of material facts pertaining to FTL and buffer zone at Kudikunta Cheruvu, Dommarapochampally village, Medchal.
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Allu Ramanarasaiah.
The petitioner complained that Dundigal municipality had revoked the building permission on the basis of a letter addressed by the tahsildar misrepresenting that the lands come under the FTL and buffer zone.
The petitioner contended that such unilateral action, without affording any opportunity for a hearing is arbitrary and a violation of principles of natural justice.
Justice Vinod Kumar, after hearing the contentions questioned the counsel, as to why the irrigation department was not impleaded as a party as they are the appropriate authority to decide whether the land falls under FTL or buffer zone.
The judge, however, suo moto impleaded the department and directed the petitioner to serve the respondents.
HC remits encroachment plea to single judge
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Saturday remitted to a single judge a plea challenging the illegal removal of encroachments on the road from Musheerabad to Jana Priya abode apartments.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by W.G. Jayalaxmi and 10 others, an appeal was filed against an order of a single judge refusing to pass an interim order seeking suspension of impugned removal/vacate notice whereby it was directed to vacate the premises within seven days.
Earlier, the appellants challenged the notice on the ground that the respondents could not have issued seven days’ notice and they are required to initiate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
The petitioner, referring to a counter affidavit filed by the tahsildar, Musheerabad, in another writ petition contended that respondents have stated that necessary steps will be taken for the removal of encroachments after providing alternate accommodation to the families, who have encroached to rehabilitate them. The single judge, observing that action had been initiated for the removal of encroachment of the petitioners and impugned notice was issued, refused to grant any relief.
However, on Saturday before the bench, it was argued by the counsel for the appellant that a notice was served to them to vacate the premises rather than a show cause notice directing the petitioners to show their title.
He would complain that petitioners were not given an opportunity to put forward their arguments since the notice was directory in nature. On the contrary, it was argued by the counsel for the respondents that the encroachment was on the pavement and not on any land and an order of the tahsildar directed the GHMC to take action of removal of encroachers by a procedure in accordance with law.
The bench, after hearing the arguments, said that even if there is encroachment, the removal of encroachers must be in accordance with the law and reiterated that there have been judgments by two constitutional benches of the apex court, which state that encroachers must be removed by a procedure in accordance with the law.
The notice in the present case is not a notice but rather an order directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. It was passed with a pre-determined mind assuming that the petitioners were encroachers.
However, considering that the writ petition is pending, the bench directed the order directing them to vacate would be treated as notice and the appellant should respond to the notice by December 26.
