HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has recently stayed the acquisition and dispossession proceedings concerning four properties, totaling 5,186.14 square yards, owned by private individuals on Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had issued notices to the property owners under Section 21 of the GHMC Act, initiating the acquisition process for a proposed 120-ft road extending from Road No. 45 T-Junction to Durgam Cheruvu.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar, in an order dated March 17, stated: “A stay is in effect for all further proceedings regarding the issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Act, particularly concerning the petitioners’ properties and their dispossession.”
The court instructed the registry to schedule a hearing for the matter on April 7. In its ruling, the court noted that authorities were obligated to designate a specific area as a resettlement site for rehabilitating affected families, under the authority of a government secretary.
However, the GHMC’s notification issued on March 6 did not designate any resettlement area as required under Section 19. The court found that the notification was allegedly published on www.thefreedompress.in, which did not seem to be an official government site based on the evidence presented.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Act mandates the declaration’s publication in two local daily newspapers, one of which should be in the regional language.
The petitioners contended that while they were labeled as interested parties in the declaration, their properties were misrepresented as government land, with no provisions made for existing structures and trees. They also claimed that their objections to the road acquisition were dismissed without adequate consideration.
In response, the court noted that the report from authorities lacked reasoning and was legally deficient, indicating that the objections were not thoroughly considered.
Although authorities referenced several proceedings in their response, no pertinent documents were included. As a result, the court ordered the special deputy collector of land acquisition, GHMC, to submit all relevant notifications with a detailed counter.
The court also addressed the authorities’ position that the affected properties were government-owned, while the petitioners asserted that numerous private properties existed along the road, with their names explicitly listed as interested parties, raising significant questions about compliance with the Act.
