Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday, September 4, has issued an order preventing HYDRA and others from taking any immediate action against N.V.N Constructions Pvt Ltd concerning a 13.17-acre plot located in Kukatpally village, Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
This decision follows a writ petition filed by the construction company, which claims that HYDRA is attempting to disrupt the current state of the land and is threatening demolition on the grounds that the property falls under a different survey number in Khanamet village, Edulakunta, Serilingampally.
The petitioner’s counsel, Zeeshan Adnan Mohammed, argued that previous surveys conducted on two occasions confirmed no overlap between the survey numbers of Khanamet and the adjacent Kukatpally land.
He contended that when the authorities sought to act based on a disputed survey conducted in 2014, which claimed that approximately 64 acres of land overlapped between different survey numbers of Kukatpally and Khanamet, this was challenged through a separate writ petition.
The High Court had specifically stated that “the impugned survey report and any subsequent actions based on it are not binding on the petitioner regarding the land he claims, and the respondents cannot assert any rights over this land or interfere with possession based on the survey report.
“The documents submitted by the petitioner, particularly the earlier two survey reports, indicated no overlap between the lands of Khanamet and Kukatpally, confirming that the disputed land is located in Kukatpally,” Justice T Vinod Kumar observed.
‘Only collector has authority to resolve disputes’
Furthermore, the court ruled that only the collector, not the survey department, has the authority to resolve disputes regarding overlapping survey numbers. Without a valid decision from the collector on any overlap between the survey numbers of the two villages, the contested survey report is not binding on the petitioner, and no one can claim rights based on it.
Zeeshan Mohammed argued that since the court had previously ruled in favour of the petitioner and prohibited the state from interfering with his peaceful possession, the state, through its agencies like HYDRA, cannot attempt to disrupt this possession or threaten demolition. He asserted that the court’s order is applicable to all state instruments and officials.
In contrast, the GHMC claimed that the petitioner’s concerns were merely speculative, stating that they had received a complaint about potential encroachment on a tank and had visited the site, but no action had been taken yet. The corporation maintained it would follow legal procedures before taking any action.
After hearing both sides, the judge instructed HYDRA and the other respondents not to take any immediate actions regarding the Kukatpally land and scheduled further hearings on the matter.
