A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Telangana Government Property (Preservation, Protection and Resumption) Act, 2007. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, rejected a challenge to the said statute made by IMG Academies Bharata Private Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that two decades earlier, the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh entered into an MoU and agreed to sell 400 acres of land at Gachibowli and 450 acres of land at Mamidipalli village, Saroornagar mandal to build, operate and extending facilities and activities pertaining to sports academies. Thereafter, the state legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Government Property (Preservation, Protection and Resumption) Act, 2007 wherein the benefits available to the petitioner under the MoU were annulled and the petitioner was entitled to reasonable compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum. Senior counsel appearing for IMG Bharat contended that the transactions and the MoU between the parties were protected under Article 298 of the Constitution of India and the impugned Act was akin to a legislation, which affects an individual as the petitioner alone is affected by the provisions of the 2007 Act. It was argued that unilateral cancellation of a sale deed by enacting a law is impermissible in law and the 2007 Act suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is, therefore, violates the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the advocate general argued that the MoU was signed without obtaining the approval of the cabinet and value of the land at the relevant point of time was Rs 13 lakh per acre, which had been sold to the petitioner for the paltry sum of Rs 50,000 per acre without assigning any reason. It is contended that the petitioner is not even remotely connected to IMG, an American company, and fraud had been played on the state government. It was further contended that the legislation affecting an individual is valid and the state has legislative competence under Entry 18 of List II and Entries 6 and 7 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out that the Act has been enacted after obtaining the assent of the President of India. It was also submitted that there was a presumption in favour of constitutionality of the statute and no factual foundation has been made in the pleadings to challenge the Act. The panel relying on the judgements of the apex court said, “It is evident that there could be a legislation relating to a single individual on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others. It is equally well settled proposition that the burden was on the person to assail the validity of the legislation that there were also other persons similarly situated and he alone was discriminated against ''.
Dismissing the writ petition and dealing with the contentions that unilateral annulment of the sale deed is not permissible by taking recourse to the legislative powers, the bench said “It is trite law that under the constitutional scheme, the executive power of the State Government is co-extensive and co-terminus with its legislative power. Merely because the sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioner, in exercise of powers under Article 298 of the Constitution of India, the same does not prohibit the State Legislature to enact a law in exercise of its legislative powers.”
Get task force to implement demolitions of illegal structures: HC
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court faulted the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for passing orders of demolition termed Speaking Order under the GHMC Act but not ensuring the demolition of illegal structures by the appropriate task force. The judge made the observation in a petition filed by B. Rajitha challenging the inaction of the authorities in not demolishing the illegal structures constructed at the petitioner's land. It is the compliant of the petitioner that the Speaking Order did not manifest itself in the demolition of the illegal structure and therefore the silence of the corporation amounted to illegality. Faulting such inaction Justice Vinod Kumar lamented at the silence of statutory authority. He pointed out that even after he had summoned the GHMC commissioner, no action was taken in such matters. He said that the court was left with no alternative but to require the presence of the principal secretary, municipal administration, so that he could be sensitised about the working of GHMC. He also said that if the strength of the task force was inadequate, then the corporation must increase the work force but the Speaking Orders of demolition cannot remain mere paper threats against illegal constructions
Demolition of building on Raj Bhavan road stayed
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court stayed temporarily the demolition of two floors of a building on Raj Bhavan road Begumpet, which houses a vernacular television broadcasting office. The judge said that if an application for regularisation was rejected, the consequential demolition should not foreclose the statutory right of appeal or revision against such rejection. The court was dealing with a writ petition complaining that the regularisation application was rejected on February 19 and even before the petitioner could file an appeal, the GHMC summoned the policeas stand-by during the demolition. Justice Vinod Kumar made it clear that he had no sympathy for illegal construction but pointed out that since the Act provides for an appeal against the order of rejection or even a revision, such statutory right cannot be defeated by proceeding to demolish the building before the time to file an appeal is exhausted. The judge accordingly closed the writ plea filed by Parmila Reddy, owner of the building, directing the GHMC to wait till the statutory period is completed and only then proceed in accordance with the law and subject to the statutory rights of the writ petitioner.
Writ against Tadbund marriage halls for noise pollution
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court entertained a letter addressed by the additional chief engineer Military Engineering Service Col. J. Satish Bharadwaj complaining of noise pollution due to function halls in Tadbund, Bowenpally, Secunderabad area. In the letter addressed to the court on February 13, it is alleged that two marriage halls Bantia and Imperial Gardens were causing noise pollution to the residents of the locality and the two function palaces are open beyond midnight and there is excessive footfall in the area, which leads to parking and movement difficulties. Earlier in 2010, there were certain restrictions. It is alleged that there is an utter violation of all restrictions and that the police authorities are guilty of inaction. Further, the additional advocate general contended that a circular has been issued regarding the same. The bench directed the state government to ensure that the provisions of the circular passed this month are strictly adhered to in the entire Hyderabad and to take requisite action and to report compliance before this court on or before the next date of hearing. The bench further directed that the two functional halls are situated in the limits of Bowenpally police station, and therefore they are directed to conduct patrolling regularly and to take measures to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the public in general on account of the functioning of the said function halls. The matter has been adjourned to March 14 for further hearing.
