Hyderabad: Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Friday issued warrant of appearance to S. Lokesh Kumar, erstwhile GHMC commissioner, and three others in a contempt case. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by K. Ambika and another alleging that the officers had willfully disobeyed the orders of the court. Earlier, the authorities rejected the application of the petitioners for building permission by holding that the property was owned by the endowments department. It is the case of the petitioner that it had been decided previously by the High Court that the land in Sy No. 387 of Attapur was not endowments land, and the order had not been challenged. The court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the GHMC bringing all the facts to their notice within a period of two weeks and required the corporation to consider the same in accordance with law. This order was not complied with. On Friday, Justice Madhavi Devi while issuing Form-I noted that earlier a showcause notice was issued in July 2022, and there is no representation from the respondents till date which is sheer disobedience of the orders of the court.
Serilingampally civic official flayed
The Telangana High Court voiced its disapproval at the Serilingampally municipality deputy commissioner for clutching at powers not vested in him. Justice T. Vinod Kumar allowed a writ petition filed by Goli Sangeetha Laxmi challenging an order of revocation made by the official, effecting the ‘building pass’ granted to the petitioner under the TS-bPASS. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for building permission on 200 sq. yards at Kondapur. It received deemed approval under the TS-bPASS Act. While listing the conditions for where approval is deemed, the Act provides that the official concerned shall be liable for disciplinary action if there is a delay in arriving at a decision within the time period. The permission under the deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days on certain grounds. The Deputy commissioner revoked the deemed approval on the premise that the land was ceiling surplus land and entered in the prohibitory watch register. Justice Vinod Kumar pointed out that under the Act, only the commissioner can revoke deemed approval. He faulted the deputy commissioner for acting without the authority of law. Justice Vinod Kumar also said that the court would not hesitate to direct disciplinary action if authorities failed to follow procedure.
Court pulls up RERA for crossing
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court faulted the Real Estate Regulation Authority (RERA) for transcending its jurisdiction and stayed its notice. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Tejvangir Dhanrajgir and another challenging the notice issued for alleged encroachment of the complainant’s joint family property at Shainayatgunj. It was alleged by Prithika Thakur in a complaint before the RERA that petitioners claiming to the owners and possessors of 12,643 square yards based on provisional ULC proceedings issued in March 2004, were making illegal plots without GHMC or RERA permission. On the basis of the complaint, RERA issued notice to the petitioners, who filed a detailed reply. Unsatisfied, RERA issued another notice, which the petitioners challenged. The petitioners that the documents filed by the complainant were not furnished to them, and that she was not concerned with the property. The petitioners contended that they do not fall under the Act of 2016 or the Rules. Shaym Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, said that if the petitioners intended to sell the property belonging to their family, it was neither wrong nor an offence. He said only ‘development’ was covered under the Act; the petitioners did not come under the meaning of ‘promoter’ and no ‘real estate project’ as defined in the Act was taking place. Hence they did not required to be registered under Section 3 of the Act.
