2 days ago
Telangana High Court refuses to grant relief in Bathukamma Kunta lake land dispute
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday refused to grant any interim relief to a petitioner who claimed that land in his possession is now submerged and located inside the recently restored Bathukamma Kunta lake in Hyderabad's Bagh Amberpet area.
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.
