Latest news with #RenukaYara
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC bars demolition of heritage structures for Metro works in Old City
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday barred the state government and Hyderabad Airport Metro Ltd from demolishing or altering any archaeological or heritage structures along the proposed Metro Rail Corridor-6 from MGBS to Chandrayangutta, until a comprehensive report is filed. The directive came from a division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, while hearing a petition filed by the Act Public Welfare Foundation, represented by Rahim Khan. The petitioner alleged that several heritage sites in the Old City were being targeted for demolition as part of the Metro project. In April, the Additional Advocate General (AAG), Imran Khan, had assured the court that no declared heritage structures would be touched, and sought time to submit a report based on heritage conservation committee notifications. On Thursday, the AAG sought more time again. Opposing the plea, petitioner's counsel, MA Basith, accused authorities of deliberately stalling and misleading the court. He also submitted RTI replies questioning whether statutory clearances were obtained for the project. Taking serious note of the delay, the court gave the government three weeks to file the report and barred any demolition or alteration of heritage structures in the meantime.
New Indian Express
02-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC seeks replies on illegal buildings near Osmansagar, Himayatsagar eco-zones
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed various departments of the state government and some private individuals to submit within four weeks their responses to a PIL challenging illegal constructions in the eco-sensitive zones surrounding the Osmansagar and Himayatsagar reservoirs. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing the PIL filed by Mandadi Madhava Reddy, a resident of Pedda Mangalaram village in Moinabad mandal of Rangareddy district, alleging inaction by the departments concerned in curbing unauthorised constructions in areas protected under Government Order 111 (GO 111) dated March 8, 1996. These areas fall within a 10km radius of the catchment regions of the twin reservoirs, which play a crucial role in Hyderabad's water supply and ecological balance. The bench issued notices to the Chief Secretary, principal secretaries of the Irrigation & CAD department and the MAUD department, the state Pollution Control Board, HMWSSB, HMDA, GHMC and several other authorities. Notices were also served on the private respondents, and the matter was adjourned until after the summer vacation in 2025. In his petition, Madhava Reddy argued that rampant illegal constructions are taking place in the bio-conservation zone in blatant violation of environmental and constitutional mandates, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and binding judicial pronouncements by the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court of India.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Telangana HC refuses to stay single judge's interim order in Bhoodan land case
Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana high court , comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, on Wednesday declined to interfere with an interim order passed by a single judge in the ongoing Bhoodan land case , directing all aggrieved parties, including several senior IAS and IPS officers, to approach the single judge for appropriate relief. The bench was hearing four appeals challenging the single judge's interim order, which barred any transactions involving plots located in Nagaram village in Maheswaram mandal of Rangareddy district, purchased by the officials. The order was issued in response to a writ petition filed by Birla Mallesh, who alleged that these lands were part of govt-assigned Bhoodan lands. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The single judge had directed that plots in survey numbers 181, 182, 194, and 195 be placed under the prohibited list, restricting all transactions pending adjudication. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Appearing for the appellants, senior advocates D Prakash Reddy, MVS Suresh Kumar, and S Niranjan Reddy argued that the officials had purchased land falling under survey numbers 194 and 195, which were classified as patta lands, not Bhoodan lands. They contended that the petitioner did not clearly allege that all the plots were part of Bhoodan land, and only survey number 181 could potentially fall under that classification. They also took objection to observations in the order referring to them as 'high officials' who might misuse their positions. In response to a query from the bench, senior counsel L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioner, maintained that the lands in question were govt lands, and thus the prohibition was justified. Suresh Kumar further argued that officials from the vigilance commission were expected to inspect the land, and that the CBI and ED had already been issued notices by the single judge. "This is enough to trigger further proceedings. How can patta lands be included in the list of prohibited properties? Everyone is being unfairly labelled as land grabbers," he said. The bench clarified that the single judge's order was purely interim in nature and could be modified at any stage based on evidence and arguments. The division bench, therefore, disposed of the appeals and advised the appellants to approach the single judge with a request to vacate or modify the stay, if warranted.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
HC declines to interfere with single judge order over IPS officers, others' appeals in Bhoodan land case
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a single judge order instructing State government to keep Bhoodan lands in Nagaram village of Maheshwaram mandal in Rangareddy district in prohibited list. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, after hearing four writ appeals filed by 10 persons (who are among the 76 respondents in a writ petition over Bhoodan lands), suggested to the appellants to file applications before the single judge for vacation of the order. Despite repeated appeals by senior counsels Desai Prakash Reddy and S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the 10 appellants, to set aside the single judge order, the bench led by the CJ suggested to them to go back to the single judge bench for securing relief. The four appeals were filed by IPS officers Ravi Gupta, Mahesh Muralidhar Bhagwat, Sowmya Mishra, Swati Lakra, Tarun Joshi, B.K. Rahul Hegde, Rekha Shroff (wife of IPS officer Umesh Shroff), Renu Goyal (wife of IPS officer Jitender Kumar Goyal) B. Rahul Reddy (son of B. Janardhan Reddy) and Veerannagari Gowtham Reddy. They were among the 76 respondents in a writ petition filed by one Birla Mallesh alleging that lands under survey numbers of 181, 182, 194 and 195 in Nagaram village of Maheshwaram mandal in Rangareddy belonged to Bhoodan Board. The petitioner sought a direction for an inquiry into the alleged benami transactions of sale and purchase of these Bhoodan lands by collusion of some persons with top officials in revenue, registration and other departments. The single judge passed an interim order instructing the government to keep the lands under prohibited list, observing that prima facie the said lands appeared to be belonging to Bhoodan Board. The appellants' counsels contended that the 'impugned order' was passed beyond the relief sought by the petitioner. Moreover, the order was passed without issuing notices to the appellants and in their absence. They claimed that the lands purchased by their clients were patta lands and did not belong to Bhoodan Board. With the Acting Chief Justice declining to interfere with the single judge order, one of the counsels of the appellants, citing a Supreme Court verdict, said the HC can set aside even an ex-parte order if it had the ingredients of a judgement or qualified to be an order. The division bench said the ex-parte order of the single judge did not fall in the ambit of final judgement and the appellants had the option of venting their grievance before the single judge explaining their grounds. Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy appealed to the bench to expunge the serious remarks made by the single judge towards the end of the order if the order cannot be set aside as they sent wrong signals. However, the bench did not agree to expunge any paragraphs of the single judge order and said the request cannot be entertained.
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC declines to hear plea against Waqf Act
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing the ongoing proceedings on the same issue before the Supreme Court. A bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara expressed its inability to proceed with the matter when the PIL, filed by Mohammed Rahim Khan of the Act Public Welfare Foundation (APWF), came up for hearing. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The bench informed the petitioner's counsel, Mohammed Nasrulla Khan, that the Supreme Court is currently examining a petition questioning the constitutional validity of the amended Waqf Act. Further, the apex court has issued specific directions restraining all high courts across the country from entertaining similar challenges while the matter is sub judice before it. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo "The Supreme Court's order is binding on us," the bench said. "You may approach us again after the apex court delivers its verdict. If you feel that any specific issue remains unaddressed, you are free to bring it to our notice at that time," it said. In light of this, the court adjourned the case to June.
