Mom Seeks Cancellation Of Gift Deed To Son

Plea against GHMC’s demolition plan

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the proposed demolition of a building at Sri Raja Rajeswarinagar, Medchal–Malkajgiri district, allegedly on the ground that it encroached upon the buffer zone of Uracheruvu (Kapra Lake). The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by T.L. Kantha Rao questioning the action of the GHMC seeking to demolish the structure without issuing prior notice and without following due process of law. The petitioner contended that the proposed action violated the provisions of the GHMC Act, the TS-bPASS Act and Rules, and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction restraining the municipal authorities from demolishing, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with the construction claimed to be lawful. During the hearing, a party-in-person, claiming to be a resident of the locality, appeared before the court and raised objections on environmental grounds, contending that a portion of the construction encroached into the buffer zone of Kapra lake. Taking note of the submissions, the judge observed that the action complained of by the petitioner appeared to have stemmed from the objection raised by the party-in-person. The judge directed the party-in-person to file an application seeking impleadment in the writ plea and directed the government pleader to obtain instructions in the matter.

Advocate-commissioner to assess road status

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti appointed advocate Shafi Mohammed as advocate-commissioner to report on the physical condition of a pathway being used for access to a leading diagnostic centre at RTC crossroads in the city. The judge was dealing with two contempt cases filed by Brijlal Tapadia and Andhra Bank Staff Welfare Association, parties in a pending second appeal. Both sides accused each other of claiming exclusive ownership over the pathway and sought directions restraining the other from using it. It was alleged that a road measuring about 140 feet laid by the management of the diagnostic centre was in violation of the status quo order passed by the court. The diagnostic centre contended that the pathway was only repaired due to potholes and mud pools, and that the work was carried out in the public interest without any wilful or wanton violation of the court’s order. The petitioners submitted that the court had earlier directed both parties to ensure smooth ingress and egress to the diagnostic centre, and in the subsequent contempt case it was alleged that flagstones and obstructions were being placed, blocking such ingress and egress, and amounted to contempt of court. Considering the rival submissions, the judge appointed the advocate-commissioner to inspect the site and submit a report to the court.