The Telangana High Court has stayed the demolition of actor Nagarjuna’s N-Convention Centre in Hyderabad.
The single-judge Bench of Justice T Vinod Kumar on Saturday issued a stay order on a petition filed by Nagarjuna against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA).
The petitioner contended that GHMC and HYDRAA commenced demolition activities on the N Convention Centre premises early on August 24, even before serving him with the necessary speaking order dated August 8, 2024, which was only delivered after the demolition began.
The High Court observed that though the respondent authorities claimed to have served the show-cause notice, the said claim was disputed by the petitioner.
Directing the respondent authorities to demonstrate the manner and mode in which the notice was served to the petitioner before passing the speaking order, the Bench vlisted the case for further hearing on September 9.
The petitioner claimed that the action of the state authorities violated a prior order of status quo passed by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department, which was still in effect.
The demolition was carried out without adhering to the 15-day period granted to remove alleged unauthorised constructions, submitted the plea.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State contended that the authorities had acted within the law as the construction by the petitioner was unauthorised and fell within the Full Tank Level (FTL) & Buffer Zone of the Thammidikunta Tank.
He said as per Section 405(a) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, no notice was required for demolishing unauthorised constructions in such zones.
The counsel for Telangana further pointed out the necessity to verify the petitioner’s claims regarding pending civil proceedings and the closure of a Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.
The High Court observed discrepancies in the respondent authorities’ claims regarding the extent of the Thammidikunta Tank.
It said while the respondents claimed the FTL covered approximately 29 acres, previous proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act indicated the extent was around 20 acres.
Without actually having determined the extent of the tank by conducting a survey, the respondent authorities were claiming that the said tank was spread over Acs.29-24 guntas in respect of which, admittedly a civil Suit was pending for adjudication, noted the single-judge Bench.
It further took a prima facie view that the authorities ought not to have initiated proceedings when a prior order of status quo passed by the MA and UD department was still in effect.
Advocate P Sri Raghuram appeared for Nagarjuna.
The State of Telangana was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the office of the Additional Advocate General.
Advocate MAK Mukheed appeared for the GHMC and the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone. HYDRAA was represented by Advocate K Ravinder Reddy.