Telangana High Court reserves verdict on Erragadda hospital PIL
Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili on Monday reserved verdict in a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation taken up on a news article with respect to encroachments made inside the Erragadda Mental Hospital. There are not only temporary structures but […]
Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili on Monday reserved verdict in a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation taken up on a news article with respect to encroachments made inside the Erragadda Mental Hospital. There are not only temporary structures but two four storied buildings on the government land. This is after the Directorate of Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster Management of the GHMC deployed staff to prevent encroachments at various lakes and lung spaces as part of large scale encroachments going unheeded in the city.
Similar encroachments were also observed near the nursing college and boys’ hostel of Osmania General Hospital. The Erragadda staff quarters also saw raising of some religious structures as well as damage to its compound wall for the purpose of commuting. The panel reserved its verdict in a connected writ petition filed by Afzal Bee and others alleging that the notices were sent by the Tehsildar, Ameerpet Mandal to remove encroachments in the premises of Erragadda Mental Hospital.
Personal appearance waived
The panel on Monday dispensed with the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary Municipal Administration for the State of Telangana and others officials in a contempt case filed for disobedience of the court orders.
The aggrieved party Mohd. Kazam Ali filed contempt before the Court stating that he was forced to sign the consent letter in respect of his land by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, he filed the writ petition and a consent order was passed in the matter.
The order which was passed based upon the consent of the learned Standing Counsel of the GHMC revealed that the GHMC was directed to take possession of the property after following the statutory provisions as contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. An award was passed in the matter. However, the amount has not been paid to the landowner. The panel posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
