SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Right to Hearing: Petitioners Must Be Heard Before Finalizing FTL of Durgam Cheruvu: Telangana High Court Directs No Demolition Until Decision

25 September 2024 2:36 PM

By: sayum


On September 23, 2024, the Telangana High Court, in Boda Priyatham Reddy and Others vs. The State of Telangana, addressed the contentious issue of determining the Full Tank Level (FTL) of Durgam Cheruvu. The petitioners claimed that the notified FTL exceeded the original extent, encroaching on their private property. The Court directed the Lake Protection Committee to reconsider the petitioners’ objections through a personal hearing and finalize the FTL within six weeks. The Court further restrained the authorities from demolishing any constructions raised by the petitioners until the FTL is determined.

The dispute centered on the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu, a tank located in Hyderabad, whose extent was initially recorded as 65.12 acres. However, a 2014 preliminary notification by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) indicated an FTL covering more than 160 acres. The petitioners, whose properties fell within this expanded FTL, challenged the notification, arguing that it exceeded the original engineering standards and encroached on private land. Despite submitting objections to the notification, the Lake Protection Committee had not considered them, prompting the petitioners to file writ petitions.

The key legal issue revolved around the determination of Durgam Cheruvu’s FTL and whether the notified extent encroached upon private property. The petitioners contended that their lands, which were being classified as part of the FTL, were wrongly included. The Court observed that the FTL must be determined based on official documents and standards set by the Irrigation Department and the Revenue Department, as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012.

The petitioners argued that their objections submitted in response to the HMDA’s preliminary notification had not been considered, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Court upheld the petitioners' right to a personal hearing before the Lake Protection Committee, ensuring that their objections must be considered before any final decision is made on the FTL of the tank.

“The Lake Protection Committee shall hear the petitioners and shall decide the objections filed by the petitioners by a speaking order.” [Para 22]

The petitioners raised concerns about their right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, alleging interference with peaceful possession of their lands due to the expanded FTL. The Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession or demolish any constructions until the FTL is finally determined.

"The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined." [Para 23]

The petitioners were given one week to resubmit their objections to the Lake Protection Committee. The Committee was directed to hold a hearing on October 4, 2024, where the petitioners would present their objections.

After considering the petitioners' objections, the Lake Protection Committee must issue a final notification on the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order. This entire process must be completed within six weeks from the date of the petitioners' appearance before the Committee.

 

The Court recorded the assurance given by the government that no action, including demolition of the petitioners’ constructions, would be taken until the FTL determination process is completed.

"Till the aforesaid exercise is carried out, no action shall be taken for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioners." [Para 23]

The Telangana High Court, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, emphasized the importance of due process and the right to a fair hearing. It directed the Lake Protection Committee to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu and to finalize the FTL after providing a personal hearing. The Court’s order ensures that no demolition of the petitioners’ properties will occur until the matter is resolved.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024

Boda Priyatham Reddy and Others vs. The State of Telangana and Others

 

Latest Legal News