MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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