Latest news with #BVijaysenReddy
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Jubilee Hills Club restrained from unauthorised construction
HYDERABAD: Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court has issued an interim order restraining the Jubilee Hills Club from carrying out any illegal construction until valid permissions are obtained from the GHMC. The order came on a writ petition filed by Peddi Venu Gopal and another petitioner, seeking enforcement of a January 9 speaking order issued by the GHMC Deputy Commissioner, Circle 18, Jubilee Hills. The order had directed the club to remove unauthorised constructions and deviations within 15 days, warning that failure to comply would invite further action and cost recovery. The petitioners contended that despite the clear directive, GHMC failed to act against the ongoing illegal construction. A complaint highlighting the inaction was submitted on April 7, but no steps were taken to enforce the demolition. Alleging retaliation, the petitioner informed the court that the club management lodged a false complaint against him with Jubilee Hills police on April 9, following which an FIR was registered under BNS. After hearing the submissions, the judge directed the club to halt all construction activity until it obtains approvals from GHMC.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
No construction till GHMC nod: Telangana high court to Jubilee Hills Club
1 2 Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Thursday directed the Jubilee Hills International Centre (popularly known as Jubilee Hills Club) to stop all ongoing construction at their premises till it gets building permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ( GHMC ). Justice B Vijaysen Reddy gave the interim direction while hearing a petition filed by P Venugopal and N Srinivas of Jubilee Hills questioning the inaction of GHMC despite bringing to their notice the unauthorised construction at the club in survey no. 403/1, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills. Senior counsel V Ravi Kiran Rao, appearing for the petitioners, said the club was building a huge banquet hall without permission from GHMC or no-objection certificate (NOC) from fire authorities. "The club management is not responding to the notices of the GHMC officials and authorities are not taking up the issue with the required seriousness," he said. GHMC counsel Midde Arun Kumar informed the court that they had issued a show cause notice which did not yield any response. He said that the deputy commissioner then passed a speaking order directing the club to demolish the unauthorised structure on its own or face the consequences. "Now, the club management has applied for a building permission and officials are examining the record," he said. Ravi Kiran said this was proof of the audacity of the club management which applied for permission only after they were left with no option and, hence, the GHMC should not process their current application. "Otherwise, they will never follow the law," he said. Advocate on record A Raghuram said the governing council of the club was going to the extent of harassing the petitioners with FIRs for playing the role of a whistleblower and alerting authorities about the illegal structure without setbacks, parking space and fire safety measures. The judge adjourned the case to July 10. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Time of India
Alwal residents win legal battle as HC quashes tahsildar's order
1 2 Hyderabad: In a major reprieve for 40 residents of Alwal, the Telangana high court has struck down a 2019 order by the Alwal tahsildar that had unilaterally classified their land as govt property. Justice B Vijaysen Reddy ruled that the revenue authorities had acted without legal authority and held that such ownership disputes must be settled by a civil court, not through summary administrative action. The tahsildar had declared a parcel of land in Alwal, locally known as 'Tholla Kharkhana' (old survey No. 380), as govt land. Allowing the writ petition filed by Bujji Banoth and 39 others, the court held that the tahsildar lacked the statutory authority to unilaterally declare the land as govt property. The judgment reinforces the principle that title disputes involving private claims must be adjudicated by civil courts and not through summary proceedings by revenue authorities. The dispute pertains to approximately five acres of land which, according to the petitioners, was originally owned by Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb and was later transferred through registered sale deeds. The petitioners claim to have purchased individual plots from Mohammed Najamuddin, who allegedly acquired the land by way of a registered gift deed. In June 2019, the tahsildar issued an order concluding that the land, shown as 'Abadi Kharkhana Cheram' in the revision survey, was govt property. The order rejected the petitioners' documentary claims, labelling them 'fake' due to the absence of corroborating municipal records, lack of registered title, and non-allotment of new survey numbers. The tahsildar also noted that only three structures were found on the site, casting doubt on the petitioners' possession claims. However, counsel for the petitioners, Srinivas Polavarapu, argued that the order had no legal foundation and violated previous high court directions. He cited a 2002 memo from the assistant director of survey and land records which described the land as privately owned, and submitted that the 'abadi' classification did not necessarily indicate govt ownership. He contended that title disputes cannot be summarily adjudicated under revenue laws, and must be resolved by a competent civil court. The high court concurred with the petitioners' arguments, observing that the tahsildar's proceedings were without jurisdiction and that the officer had misapplied earlier judicial directions. The court also emphasised that notices issued under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act, 1869, did not confer authority to determine land ownership or title. It held that the matter involved genuine and complex questions of title, unsuited for administrative or summary proceedings. Accordingly, the court quashed the tahsildar's June 2019 order and restrained the state and revenue authorities from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of the land, pending adjudication by a competent civil court.
