GHMC can’t take away land: HC
Civic body violating law, alleges petitioner
The Hyderabad High Court has held that a person cannot be compelled to give up land purchased by him free of cost to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) under the threat that permission will be denied to him for construction in the rest of the land which is not required for road widening.
Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was allowing a plea challenging the action of the GHMC in rejecting petitioner Mohammed Ali’s application for construction of a house at Karmanghat in city, on the ground that his site falls in the 200 feet pro- posed road as per the Revised Master Plan 2008.
He contended that the decision of the civic body was against law and violates the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
He said that the layout in which his plot is located was approved by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (Huda) in 2004 and his right over the property cannot be taken away on the ground that it was included in the Master Plan and if the GHMC requires his land, it has a statutory obligation to acquire it by paying compensation.
He said that without doing so they cannot prevent him from enjoying his property or reject his application.
The authorities submitted that the government had approved a Revised Master and the petitioner’s property is getting by road widening and under Section 18(2) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, no person can use or be permitted to carry out any development in that area unless it is in conformity with the plan.
They stated that as and when the GHMC takes up road widening compensation would be paid to him. The judge made it clear that the enforcement of regulations framed under Section 12 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, should be done in such a way that citizens are not deprived of their property. If a zoning classification imposes unreasonable restrictions, it cannot be allowed.
The judge directed the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 32 of the HMDA Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the portion of the land required by them and to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The judge said the respondents should not insist that he should surrender the land required for road widening free of cost as a precondition for considering his application.