Telangana High Court refuses to grant relief in Bathukamma Kunta lake land dispute
While the petitioner contended that the disputed land was only a low-lying area that was dug up further and subsequently collected rainwater to form a lake, the court looked at recent photographs of the lake restored by the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) to refuse interim relief to the petitioner.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with the petitioner's claim that the land measuring 988.49 sq m was never formally acquired by the state under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and that the acquisition proceedings under this Act remained incomplete. Despite this, the petitioner alleged, the land was unilaterally designated for public or conservation purposes in the master plan and a low-lying area has been dug up further to create a lake.
The plea asked the court to set aside G.O. Ms. No. 363 dated August 21, 2010, and subsequently G.O. Ms. No. 120 dated December 2, 2010, but only to the extent that these orders affect the specific property. The core of the argument is that if the land was never legally acquired, the government has no right to alter its classification or ownership status in official records or planning documents.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel B Mayur Reddy said the state was wrongfully claiming that a lake existed at the place, and showed a photograph to this effect. He asked the state to formally acquire the land before declaring the site as a lake.
The government pleader, opposing the petitioner's claims, argued that the entire five-acre land was now a part of the restored Bathukamma Kunta lake. He then submitted photographs of a water-filled lake to state that no land of the petitioner existed within the disputed area.
Reddy said that if the court could consider a photograph with a lake, he could submit a photograph of the same place without a lake and also submit photographs showing bulldozers digging up the land to create the lake.
Adding that the photographs do not reveal there is any land available on the sides of the lake, the judge asked the senior counsel to show the actual location of his land within the lake site before further proceedings.
The case was adjourned for a date two weeks later.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Vile Parle Jain temple demolition: HC extends status quo of Jain temple for four weeks
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal by the Trust which runs Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle (East), that challenged an order of the city civil court refusing interim protection from the BMC's demolition action. On April 16 this year, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished most of the Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle that sparked outrage and protests from members of the Jain community. The HC observed that the BMC's action cannot be faulted with and there was no 'illegality' or 'perversity' in the impugned order of the city civil court . A single-judge bench of Justice Gauri V Godse issued an order, allowing the status quo it granted on April 16 against further demolition to continue for another four weeks. This came after the judge was informed that appellant—Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust— had given an undertaking to the BMC that it will remove the temporary shed constructed for protection from monsoon before October 31 this year. On April 7, a city civil court had rejected the temple Trust's plea against demolition action but it gave the Trust interim protection from demolition for seven days to allow it to file an appeal in the high court. On April 15, the city civil court rejected an application by the temple Trust, seeking extension of interim protection from demolition. On April 16, the Trust informed the HC that the BMC officials and police were present at the site to begin demolition, after which the HC passed an order that status quo in respect of the suit structure as of now shall be maintained, However, the court was informed that most of the structure had already been demolished. Senior advocate Surel Shah, representing the Trust, on Tuesday sought the HC's interference in the impugned order, stating that the BMC could not have initiated the action at the subject premises. However, advocate Drupad Patil for the BMC submitted that there was no restrictive order against it to take an action. The HC noted that two separate actions were initiated by the BMC in December, 2024, including one implementing its notice under Section 53 (notice against unauthorised development) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The notice issued by BMC under said provision was confirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Trust had withdrawn its challenge against the implementation of the said notice. The second notice was issued by the BMC under Section 488 (inspection of premises by civic authorities) under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act. The HC further noted that the BMC was not prevented from taking action of implementing notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as the same had attained the finality before the Supreme Court and the Trust 'would not be entitled to seek any relief'. 'Thus, the prima facie opinion expressed by city civil court in impugned order to refuse grant of any interim relief cannot be faulted. In the absence of any prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the reasons recorded in impugned order cannot be faulted,' the HC observed. 'I do not see any legality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed,' Justice Godse held. The HC said that it will pass an order on other appeals and contempt plea along with issue of removal of debris on Wednesday, July 9.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha? Government to take call on Yashwant Varma removal route
Justice Yashwant Varma NEW DELHI: With many from the Opposition parties indicating support for the move to evict him from judiciary, the government is soon to take a call on whether to bring the motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha in the Monsoon session of Parliament, beginning on July 21. The law requires a motion for removal to be endorsed by 100 LS MPs. The required number is 50 in the case of Rajya Sabha. Govt has been holding consultations with the Opposition parties. The process for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, or a high court, is provided under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which says that "a Judge of the SC, or the high court, shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. " To initiate a removal proceeding, Constitution has laid down very stringent conditions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires Parliament to set up a three-member committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court and a noted jurist, to probe with evidence if the judge was indeed guilty of "misbehaviour or incapacity". The committee is constituted only after a motion is moved in Parliament for removal, addressed to the President 'praying for the removal of a judge'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Once the motion is moved, Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, may consider admitting the motion and constitute an inquiry committee under Section 3(2) of Judges (Inquiry) Act. In this case, the Supreme Court has already constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee comprising chief justices of Punjab and Haryana high court and Himachal Pradesh high court, and a judge of Karnataka high court. Based on their findings and examination and recording of statements of more than 50 witnesses, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna recommended Justice Varma's removal to the President and the Prime Minister. The govt is likely to share the findings of the in-house report with the inquiry committee, which is mandated to be set up by Parliament after a motion for removal is adopted, under Judges (Inquiry) Act: something which may help the panel and enable it to submit its report soon. Others who faced removal As reported by TOI earlier, Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court was the first judge against whom the Rajya Sabha had voted with the required majority on a removal motion in 2011. But the judge finally resigned to avoid his removal. The first case of a removal motion in Parliament was against Justice V Ramaswami, a judge of SC, in 1991. But he escaped being removed as the motion failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in Lok Sabha. Justice PD Dinakaran, the then chief justice of Sikkim high court, resigned in 2011 before the removal proceedings were initiated in Rajya Sabha. In 2015, a similar motion was moved in Rajya Sabha against Justice JB Pardiwala of Gujarat high court. However, the judge later removed a controversial statement from a judgment of his that had stoked the controversy. The latest case was against Justice SK Gangele of Madhya Pradesh high court when 58 MPs of Rajya Sabha moved the motion. However, an inquiry committee absolved the judge of sexual harassment charges against him.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Politicians believe they are kings': HC slams TN police over closing complaints against Ponmudi
Political leaders wrongly believe they are the kings who can do no wrong, the Madras high court remarked on Tuesday as it criticised former Tamil Nadu minister K Ponmudi for 'misusing' free speech and questioned the state police's decision to close over 120 complaints against the DMK leader for his alleged vulgar comments about women, and Hindu sects Shaivites and Vaishnavites. The HC uestioned the state police's decision to close over 120 complaints against the DMK leader for his alleged vulgar comments about women, and Hindu sects Shaivites and Vaishnavites. (File photo) A single bench of justice P Velmurugan reminded Ponmudi, who had to resign from the cabinet on April 27 following the outrage over his remarks, that politicians were not above the law. The court also decided to keep pending its suo motu proceedings against the leader. 'Nowadays, all politicians, all persons making public speeches think Article 19 gives them absolute only sky is the limit. Court cannot simply be a silent spectator. There are reasonable restrictions. There are several sects, religious (public figures) should think about it, when they are in public life,' the judge remarked. '…A strong message should go. So many things are being said, as if they (politicians) are the kings of this country. Whatever they say, they think they can do no wrong. The Court cannot watch these things silently,' the judge added. Justice Velmurugan made the observations after advocate general PS Raman, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, told the court that the state police had examined over 120 complaints registered against Ponmudi following his comments. The police concluded that the former minister had not committed any offence but had merely 'repeated something that had been said decades ago.' Therefore, the police had decided to 'close all complaints' against Ponmudi in the case, Raman told the court. During an event on April 8 this year, Ponmudi had recited a joke linking the religious forehead markings of Shaivites and Vaishnavites to sexual positions, provoking widespread outrage. The joke also referenced a sex worker, drawing further condemnation. Soon after, justice N Anand Venkatesh of the high court initiated suo motu proceedings and directed the police to register an FIR against Ponmudi. Justice Venkatesh had noted that Ponmudi's comments were 'prima facie hate speech, derogatory to women, and offensive to religious communities.' On Tuesday, Justice Velmurugan questioned the legality of the closure of complaints at the stage of preliminary inquiry, saying police cannot decide whether the speech amounts to hate speech 'without a formal investigation.' The judge cautioned the police that if all the original complainants in the case were not informed about the closure of their cases, the court will act strictly against the state. 'We will keep the suo motu case pending. You will have to get acknowledgements from the complainants for closing their complaints. If any person comes and says they have not been served with notice before closing, this court will come down heavily,' justice Velmurugan said, listing the matter for further hearing on August 1. Ponmudi, who was removed by the DMK as the party deputy general secretary following his remarks and later dropped from the cabinet, had previously admitted to making the remarks but maintained he had just narrated a widely known anecdote. Justice Venkatesh, however, remarked at the time: 'These comments spew venom on Hindu sects and demean the moral worth of women,' adding that they may attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
