Lake land: HC impleads irrigation dept

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Friday suo motu impleaded the irrigation department in a writ plea alleging misrepresentation of facts pertaining to the full tank level (FTL) and buffer zone at Kudikunta Cheruvu in Dommarapochampally of Medchal district. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Allu Ramanarasaiah who complained that the Dundigal municipality had revoked his building permission on the basis of a letter addressed by the tahsildar which misrepresented that the land fell under the FTL and buffer zone. The petitioner said the municipality did not give him an opportunity for a hearing. Justice Vinod Kumar asked counsel why the irrigation department was not impleaded as a party as it was the appropriate authority to decide whether the land fell under the FTL or buffer zone.

ENCROACHMENT CASE SENT TO SINGLE JUDGE

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Saturday remitted to a single judge, a plea challenging the removal of encroachments on the road from Musheerabad to Jana Priya Abode Apartments. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal filed by W.G. Jayalaxmi and 10 others, against the single judge’s order refusing to suspend the removal/vacate notice. The appellants had challenged the notice before the single judge on the ground that the respondents were required to initiate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and not by a seven-day notice. The petitioners stated that the Musheerabad tahsildar, in another writ petition, had said that encroachments would be removed after providing alternative accommodation to the affected families. The single judge observed that the notice had been issued for removal of the encroachments, and had refused to grant relief. On Saturday, counsel for the appellant argued before the Chief Justice bench that the notice served to them was to vacate the premises rather than a showcause notice directing the petitioners to show their title. The petitioners were not given an opportunity to put forward their arguments since the notice was in the nature of an order. Counsel for the respondents said that the encroachment was on the pavement, and an order of the tahsildar had directed the GHMC to remove the encroachers in accordance with the law. The bench noted that even if it was an encroachment, its removal must be in accordance with the law. The bench reiterated that there have been judgments by two constitutional benches of the apex court on this matter. The notice was rather an order directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. It was passed with a predetermined mind, assuming that the petitioners were encroachers, the bench said. Considering that the writ petition was pending with the single judge, the bench stated that the order directing them to vacate be treated as a notice and the appellant should respond by December 26.