IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala 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

 

Similar News