-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In its observations, the court stated, "The government has the responsibility to act in tune with the growing requirements and take steps to provide the road and other facilities to the inhabitants of the city." It further added, "In case of a conflict between public interest and individual interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest."
The petitioners had raised objections to the construction, alleging violations of rules and procedures in road widening and construction. However, the court noted that the petitioners' legal rights had not been affected, and the earlier dismissal of similar petitions had already attained finality.
The court also referred to the principles laid out in the case of Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which highlighted the need to consider the viability of road alignments in ecologically sensitive zones while balancing public interest and individual landowners' interests.
This ruling underscores the significance of infrastructure development for the city's growth and serves as a reminder of the courts' limited jurisdiction in the absence of legal infirmities and mala fide actions by the authorities.
The judgment reaffirms the courts' commitment to uphold projects that serve the larger public interest while acknowledging the need to protect the environment and preserve water bodies in the area.
The decision has implications for similar cases involving infrastructure development across the region, as it sets a precedent for weighing public welfare against individual grievances in matters of urban planning and development.
Date of Decision: 1 November 2023
Mr. Srikanth V J Tanikella VS The State Of Telangana
[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/THC-01-Nov-23-Mr_Srikanth_V_J_Tanikella_vs_The_State_Of_Telangana.pdf"]
