- Delhi Seemapuri Building Collapse: Several Feared Trapped As Rescue Operation Underway
- Claude Users Can Work Across Google Docs, Sheets and Slides In-App
- Rapido Ride Turns Into Nightmare After Captain Flees With Injured Passenger
- 7 Must-Watch OTT Releases For Your Dussehra Holidays
- ‘His Lips Turned Blue’: Dentist Recalls 45-Minute Effort To Save Flydubai Pilot Smit Machchhar
- Airtel Postpaid Plans Bring Free International Roaming From Rs 499
- 'Politics means nation building to him': Rajnath Singh on PM Modi's 25 years in public service
- 'Rising Together': India sets out vision for 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games ambition
HC restrains govt from dispossessing land-owners for Musi riverfront project
In Short
Justice Kaja Sarath heard a writ filed by I Prabhakar Reddy and three others, who own 9.08¾ acres in survey no 27, 28, 31 and 32 at Dargah Khaliz Khan village in Gandipet mandal of Ranga Reddy district.
Share :
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the State government not to dispossess four land-owners from their property for two weeks while considering their challenge to acquisition of 9.08¾ acres for the 55-km Musi River Development Front project.
Justice Kaja Sarath heard a writ filed by I Prabhakar Reddy and three others, who own 9.08¾ acres in survey no 27, 28, 31 and 32 at Dargah Khaliz Khan village in Gandipet mandal of Ranga Reddy district.
The petitioners challenged the State’s decision to acquire their land for the project after granting exemption under Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The proposed project covers a 55 km stretch from Gandipet to Gowrelly, passing through 46 villages in 14 mandals across Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Medchal-Malkajgiri districts.
Senior Counsel Vivek Reddy for petitioners submitted they had approached the Ranga Reddy district collector and filed objections against the proposed acquisition. However, the objections were not considered, which, he argued, showed non-application of mind.
He said the petitioners’ land falls within a bio-conservation zone and is located about half km from the Himayatsagar reservoir. The authorities had failed to follow mandatory procedures under the land acquisition law, including requirements relating to Social Impact Assessment and other statutory safeguards.
Additional Advocate-General Tera Rajinikanth Reddy opposed grant of any interim relief and sought time to file government counter. He assured the court that the mandatory procedures would be followed; the petitioners would not be dispossessed in the meantime.
After hearing both sides, Justice Sarath directed the government to file its counter within two weeks. Until then, the court directed State not to dispossess the petitioners from the land.
