Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday found fault with the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) for appropriating extra-constitutional authority to adjudicate on a land dispute which was purely civil in nature, where the question of human rights violation did not arise. The court also stayed the SHRC order and issued notices to the government.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy made these observations during the hearing of a case, which involved Rs 3,000-crore worth of land spread across 84 acres at Raidurg, a prime area in the IT corridor of the city.
It may be recalled that during an auction conducted three years ago, Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) realised Rs 34 crore per acre at Raidurg.
Apart from private individuals fighting for the ownership of the 84-acre land, the state government has also been claiming ownership for decades. The SHRC, however, issued an order in favour of one Syed Azzizullah Hussain and Lorven Projects Limited, who entered into an agreement with Hussain.
Though the SHRC had issued the order on April 12, the state government did not oppose the order till Tuesday. The order came to light only when another private claimant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the SHRC order.
Questioning the inaction of the state government when the SHRC issued orders favouring private parties on the government land, Justice Vijaysen Reddy asked Special Government Counsel Sanjeev Kumar: "What were you doing when the SHRC was issuing orders? It looks like the government is also not fair enough in its arguments."
"The government has not challenged the SHRC order before the private persons approached the court," Justice Vijaysen Reddy pointed out.
Further, the division bench observed that the SHRC has exceeded its jurisdiction in this particular case. "Moreover the matter is sub-judice as cases are pending in different courts. It appears the Telangana SHRC became a superior authority over the High Court, Court of Wards and other judicial institutions," the bench observed.
Special counsel informed the court that he had argued the case before SHRC also and so far the order copy had not been served on the respondents. "The chairman of the SHRC announced on April 12 that orders would be pronounced later, but the order copy was given to some parties on the same day," he said.
