Stop Coming Up With Flimsy Excuses for Delays, HC Warns Hyd Collector
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court expressed its displeasure at the Hyderabad district collector for presenting flimsy and false submissions that he was so busy with election work for the last several months, even as there have been delays in administrative works.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, cautioned the collector and authorities against being a ‘smart Alec’ when dealing with the court.
It was dealing with an appeal filed by the collector against a single judge order over the property bearing MCH No. 10-6-213 and 10-6-214 admeasuring 2,302 sq. yards situated at First Lancer, TS 59, Block-A, Ward No. 22, Gudimalkapur village, Asifnagar mandal, Hyderabad.
It is a private property that was given on lease to run a government school in 1968. The school functioned till the 2010s. However, the rent was not claimed by the owners after 1996.
When the government claimed rights over the property, the owner objected. A single judge had in September 2023 ordered that the authorities could initiate land acquisition proceedings to acquire the subject premises, if they so choose, and complete all such proceedings within six months.
If, for any reason, the authorities are not inclined to acquire the subject property or failed to conclude the said proceeding within the time stipulated, the authorities shall hand over possession of the subject property to its owners.
However, without initiating the land acquisition procedure within the stipulated time, the Hyderabad collector on behalf of the state government filed an appeal on July 26 challenging the single judge order. An appeal was also filed with after a delay of 286 days.
When the delay was objected to by the owners, government counsel Adepu Divya urged the court to condone the delay and hear the appeal. When she submitted that due to election work, the collector was unable to file an appeal, the Chief Justice questioned whether the official was actively involved in campaigning or whether he was a contesting candidate.
Government counsel also mentioned that the collector was busy with distribution of double bedroom houses. The court cautioned that submission of such flimsy grounds would cause further questions by the court and the officer, who is at fault, will be in a soup.
