Telangana High Court takes up plea against land acquisition for railway depot in Shamshabad
The Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging land acquisition for a proposed railway coaching depot in Shamshabad, with petitioners alleging violations of GO 111 restrictions, lack of environmental clearances, and infringement of property rights
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court has taken on file a writ petition challenging the proposed acquisition of land for setting up a Mega Coaching Depot and allied railway maintenance facilities in Shamshabad mandal of Rangareddy district.
The petition was filed by A Venkat Reddy and others, who contended that the South Central Railway, along with other respondent authorities, is proposing to establish a large-scale facility for maintenance of rolling stock.
The proposed project, according to the plea, includes washing lines, denting and shunting works, pit lines, stabling lines, platforms, connectivity lines, and other infrastructure to handle more than 1,000 coaches. It also envisages construction of residential quarters, office buildings, hotels and other terminal-related facilities.
The petitioners submitted that the authorities are seeking to acquire lands situated in Jukal and Palmakula villages of Shamshabad mandal for the project. They argued that these lands fall within the restricted zone governed by G.O.Ms. No. 111, dated March 8, 1996, which regulates development in the catchment areas of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes. A
According to the petitioners, any large-scale construction activity in the said zone requires specific statutory permissions, and the proposed project cannot be undertaken in violation of the restrictions imposed under the Government Order. They further alleged that the respondents are proceeding without obtaining environmental clearance from the competent authorities and without adhering to due process of law.
Contending that such action is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to property, the petitioners sought a declaration to that effect. They also requested the Court to direct the authorities to consider their representations and relocate the proposed project to an alternative site outside the restricted zone.
The judge directed the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing.
