Telangana HC ends 16-year land row: Bholakpur slum status under review; collector told to act in 6 months, inform GHMC
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court directed the Hyderabad district collector to conduct an inquiry under the provisions of the Slum Improvement Act and to complete it within six months.
The court further directed the collector to issue a reasoned order, taking into account all relevant facts, and to communicate the same to the petitioners in both the writ and contempt petitions, as well as to GHMC for necessary action. The dispute concerns approximately 12,056 square yards of private land known as 'Ramaswamy compound,' of which 9,000 square yards were notified as a slum area in 1999.
The writ petitioners, claiming to be absolute owners of the land, challenged slum notification.
Meanwhile, the contempt petitioners contested the 2007 GHMC eviction orders and a 2016 HC direction to maintain status quo. They also claimed to have been in possession of land for several decades, while the 2008 petitioners stated they had already secured eviction orders under Rent Control Act. While the petitioners in the contempt case alleged unauthorised demolition on the disputed land, the advocate commissioner's report found no proof of such activity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bathroom to courtroom: Man attends virtual hearing from toilet, Gujarat HC orders contempt proceedings
The Gujarat High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against a man for attending a virtual hearing while sitting on a toilet seat. The incident occurred on June 20 when Justice Nirzar S. Desai was hearing a case. A video of it soon went viral on social media platforms. A division bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and R.T. Vachhani passed an order on June 30 directing the HC registry to "register a suo motu contempt proceedings against the person who is seen in the video". In its 'oral order' which was uploaded on July 3, the HC bench directed the Registrar of Information and Technology to inform the Court "about the mechanism to stop contumacious litigants in participating in the live streaming proceedings, since it is also noticed by us that such disorderly and uncontrolled behaviour has become frequent". "Registry shall issue the notice to the contemnor as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for committing Contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A suo motu proceeding shall be listed after a period of two weeks," the bench said in the order. "The infamous video tarnishing the image of this court is widely circulated in social media and it requires to be immediately banned and deleted," the bench further said. Answering nature's call during proceedings In the video, a man wearing a yellow t-shirt can be seen logging in using a mobile phone, with the name on the screen identifying him as 'Samad Battery'. Shockingly, the video shows he had been sitting on a toilet seat and answering nature's call while he attended the proceedings through video link. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Gujarat High Court has allowed both lawyers and litigants to join through the virtual mode, and the proceedings of each hearing are broadcast live via the court's YouTube channel. The one minute-long video showed that the man, later identified as Abdul Samad, had kept the mobile phone on the floor of the toilet with the camera facing him. After finishing his business in the toilet, he picked up the phone and left. Justice Desai apparently did not notice his actions or the surroundings. The same person, wearing wireless earphones, can be seen logging in again later in the livestream, sitting in a room and waiting for his turn. After nearly 10 minutes, Justice Desai asked his name and he identified himself as Abdul Samad, a resident of Kim village of Surat and the complainant in a case of assault. His lawyers informed the court that Mr. Samad had recently lodged a complaint of assault against two persons in Kim, but both the parties have arrived at a compromise. Hearing the petition filed by the two accused seeking to quash the First Information Report, Justice Desai asked Samad if he consented to it. He told the court he had no objection, following which Justice Desai granted the accused's plea.
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay
Mumbai: Observing that there was 'overwhelming evidence of material suppression, misleading actions, and apparent collusion' between property developers in Uran and officers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), the Bombay high court recently ordered the Navi Mumbai planning authority to demolish an illegally constructed complex of five buildings in the Chanje village in Uran taluka in four weeks. HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay The village, about 15 minutes away from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority, has had improved connectivity with Mumbai since the inauguration of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, otherwise known as Atal Setu, last year. 'We find this to be yet another case where the authorities have been complicit in promoting and tolerating illegal and unauthorised constructions, despite being consistently alerted through written complaints from citizens,' a division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed in their June 20 order. However, the respondents in the case—land owner Vivek Deshmukh and the developer, Vinayak Developers—approached the Supreme Court, which on June 27 granted an interim stay on the high court's order until it hears the case further. 'We make it clear that no eviction operation shall be carried out without the leave of this court,' the apex court said. The petition was filed in the high court by Uran residents Meenanath Patil and Vijay Jadhav, who contended that the developers had started construction on the plot in 2013 after obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Chanje gram panchayat, while being well aware that they could not have built on the land without Cidco's approval. In December 2013, the petitioners filed three complaints against the allegedly illegal construction before the Chanaje gram panchayat, stating that the construction obstructed access to their homes and a water well. These were followed by complaints to the Uran panchayat samiti and Raigad district collector. In 2014, Cidco inspected the site of the allegedly illegal construction and issued a notice to the developer for the removal of the unauthorised construction under sections of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. In January 2016, the planning authority also filed an FIR against the developers for the unauthorised construction. The petitioners' lawyer, Abhinandan Vagyani, told the court that Cidco also issued a similar notice to the developer in September 2024. 'By this time, an entire complex of five buildings had already been constructed illegally…' Vagyani said, adding that the notice was a mere formality. 'This is a classic case where the authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions…,' he told the court. Cidco's lawyer then drew the court's attention to an affidavit filed by its Controller of Unauthorized Constructions department, which stated that the planning authority had inspected the site in August 2024. 'Cidco officials found residents occupying illegally and unauthorisedly constructed buildings,' the affidavit said. A month later, the residents were issued notices under the MRTP Act, the lawyer said. The court was also informed that the regularisation application filed by the developers was rejected by Cidco on January 27 this year. The high court, however, said that Cidco had 'not only exhibited a deliberate inaction but has also taken superficial steps, further encouraging illegal constructions.' The judges said, 'By its conduct, Cidco has not only fostered unauthorised structures but has also jeopardised the interest of innocent flat purchasers who, despite investing their hard-earned money, have become victims of these illegal developments'. The court, however, added, 'These purchasers, who failed to exercise due diligence by conducting proper title searches and obtaining sanctioned plans, cannot be entirely absolved of their imprudence. Their recourse, if any, lies against the developer.' The court also ordered the authorities, including the Maharashtra government and Cidco, to take action against 'all concerned officers who have permitted the continuance of illegal construction since 2014 and take appropriate action against not only the officers of Cidco but also against the concerned developers…'. The high court also set aside an order of the civil judge, junior division, Uran, who had ordered a status quo in the case in December 2024.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
SC to decide validity of Madras HC stay on Tamil Nadu law on University VC appointments
NEW DELHI: The on Friday entertained Tamil Nadu's petition questioning reasonableness of Madras HC's order staying its legislation, which gave the state government, instead of the governor, the power to appoint University vice-chancellors, but refused M K Stalin government's plea for suspending the HC order to re-operationalize the law. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now TN fielded a team of senior advocates – A M Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson – to argue that the HC had without considering the urgency to appoint vice-chancellors to universities, recommendations to which effect has been put in cold-storage by the Governor, stayed the legislation. The law giving state govt the power to appoint VCs to universities was stayed along with nine other laws, Bills for which were reserved for the President's consideration by the governor but were regarded as deemed to have been approved by President in a controversial unprecedented ruling by a two-judge SC bench on Apr 8. Three days after the 'deemed to have been approved' ruling by the SC, which now is subject to a Constitution bench's opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning the use of Article 142 power of the SC to virtually obliterate roles assigned by the Constitution to President and Governors on Bills passed by Assemblies, the TN govt had notified the nine bills as laws. The bench refused to stay the HC order but asked the UGC and the public interest litigation petitioner before the HC to respond to TN's petition in four weeks. For UGC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the law is palpably contrary to the UGC Regulations which empower only governors to appoint VCs to the universities. When the senior advocates pleaded that they would argue before the HC for vacation of the stay, Mehta said that in that case the TN must withdraw its petition seeking transfer of the PIL from Madras HC to the SC. 'The state cannot have both options open at the same time and be permitted to argue before the HC that the SC is considering transfer of the PIL to itself,' he said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Wilson sought expunging of certain 'harsh remarks' against him by the HC merely because he was pointing out the SC's 2-J bench order. Justices Narasimha and Mahadevan said this request would be considered by the SC during the final hearing on the TN's petition. One of the Acts, notified on Apr 11 by the state related to vesting in the state govt the powers of the Governor, as Chancellor, to appoint vice-chancellors of universities in the state. A vacation bench of the HC on May 21 granted stay on this amending provision, holding that UGC Regulations, 2018, would prevail over the state legislation by virtue of doctrine of repugnancy. The state said it had raised the objection to the delay in filing of the PIL but the division bench of the HC 'did not even call for an explanation from the Registry of the HC or the Petitioner but proceeded to hear the case in a tearing hurry.' The HC 'showed undue haste', did not even give a week's time to the state to file its counter affidavit, and passed the stay order 'for extraneous reasons', it said, adding that the impugned order is replete with personal attacks on the senior counsel who appeared for the state.
