Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

High Court orders status quo on N-Convention demolition dispute

The petitioner’s primary argument is that they have owned approximately 6.30 acres of land since 1992, acquired through registered Sale Deeds.

By:  Tupaki Desk   |   25 Aug 2024 4:06 AM GMT
High Court orders status quo on N-Convention demolition dispute
X

N-Convention has filed a petition with the Hon’ble High Court in response to an unexpected demolition attempt by HYDRA early in the morning around 8 AM. At 9:04 AM, HYDRA officials served a notice, dated 08.08.2024, under section 636 of the GHMC Act. Following this, a House Motion was swiftly moved in the High Court, and the case was heard virtually around 1 PM.

The petitioner’s primary argument is that they have owned approximately 6.30 acres of land since 1992, acquired through registered Sale Deeds. These properties are patta lands and have been recorded in the name of Mr. Akkineni Nagarjuna. The N-Convention building stands on this land, confirming that no government or tank land has been encroached upon.

The petitioner’s land is adjacent to Thammidikunta Tank, listed as Survey No.36, with a recorded extent of 20.07 acres. According to Building Byelaws and Zonal Regulations, the Full Tank Level (FTL) should be 9 meters. However, due to a disputed private survey, the FTL was set at 30 meters based on an erroneous tank area estimate of 29 acres instead of the actual 20 acres. This discrepancy is being contested in Civil Court case O.S.No.733 of 2017. The Collector & HMDA have confirmed the tank’s extent as 20.07 acres, and the Land Grabbing Court has recorded this fact.

Additionally, when N-Convention’s application for building regularization was rejected, they sought relief from the Government of Telangana, which issued a status order in 2021 that remains valid. The matter concerning Survey No.11, part of Ayyappa Society litigation, is also pending in the Supreme Court, which has issued a status quo order.

After reviewing the arguments and the demolition procedure, the Court found the demolition action potentially unjust. Therefore, it ordered both parties to maintain the status quo and scheduled the next hearing in two weeks. The Court will decide on the legal basis of the authorities' actions.