Hyderabad: Telangana high court has recently stayed the acquisition and dispossession proceedings related to four properties, measuring 5,186.14 square yard, owned by private individuals on Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills.Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had issued notices to the property owners under Section 21 of the GHMC Act and initiated the acquisition process for a proposed 120-ft road from Road No. 45 T-Junction to Durgam Cheruvu.Justice NV Shravan Kumar, in an order issued on March 17, stated: “There shall be a stay of all further proceedings to the extent of issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Act insofar as the properties of the petitioners are concerned, including their dispossession from the subject properties.” The court directed the registry to post the matter to April 7 for further hearing. In delivering the order, the court noted that authorities were required to declare an identified area as a resettlement area for the rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families under the seal of a secretary to the govt.However, GHMC declaration notification on March 6, did not declare any resettlement area under Section 19. The court also recorded that the notification was shown as published on www.thefreedompress.in, which did not appear to be an official govt website based on the material placed before it. It further noted that the Act mandates the publication of the declaration in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, one of which must be in the regional language.The petitioners alleged that while the declaration mentioned them as interested persons, the properties were shown as govt land and no provisions were mentioned for existing structures and trees. They further claimed that their objections to the proposed road acquisition were submitted but rejected without due process or proper consideration. In response, the court observed that the report issued by authorities was bereft of reasons and suffered from legal infirmities, indicating that the objections had not been considered in depth across all aspects raised.Although authorities referred to several proceedings in their response, they did not attach any relevant copies. Consequently, the court directed the special deputy collector of land acquisition, GHMC, to file all relevant notifications through a detailed counter. The court also took note of the authorities’ stance that the affected properties were govt-owned, while the petitioners argued that many private properties exist on the stretch and their names were explicitly shown as interested persons, raising significant questions over compliance with the Act.
