Hyderabad: The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the erstwhile civic body of a much smaller Hyderabad had mistook a private land as that of the government’s, protected it from encroachers for 20 years and leased it out to APSRTC in 1988 for 99 years.
Keeping good faith in the erstwhile MCH, the APSRTC constructed Asia’s biggest bus station, the Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station and Salar Park by spending several crores.
The construction began in 1988 and the bus station became functional since 1994 helping thousands of passengers to reach their destination on a daily basis. Everything ran smoothly until a private person approached the court over the ownership of part of Imliban bus station and Salar Park and successfully won the case in the Hyderabad High Court.
He had asked either GHMC or APSRTC to pay compensation for using his land. Both government agencies were taken aback by the compensation amount approached the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the plea in 2015 and asked the civic body to pay compensation according to the market value since 1981. It had also asked the corporation to settle the issue through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement and mediation. The compensation demanded by the owner of the land would lead to severe financial losses to the corporation for more than one financial year.
The erstwhile MCH had handed over 18 acres and 30 guntas land at Imliban bus station situated in survey numbers 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13 including 6 acres and 20 guntas in survey numbers 7 and 12 belonging to Raghottam Reddy who won the case in the Supreme Court in 2015 after fighting it for more than three decades.
An official said that a meeting had been convened with TSRTC MD, GHMC commissioner, Chief City Planner, Additional Commissioner Parks, estate officer during September 2016 and the minutes of the meeting were submitted to MA&UD principal secretary on September 12, 2016 for which the state government had issued a memo on January 20, 2017 and asked to conduct a detailed enquiry into the affected lands.
It had also sought a detailed report before negotiating it with the property owners prior to the settlement as directed by the courts.
However, highly placed sources in the corporation said that neither the corporation nor the TSRTC was in a strong financial position to pay the compensation as prescribed by the courts.
Sources said the property owner had been demanding that the corporation should pay compensation according to the current market value which would be one and a half year’s budget of the GHMC.
The court has asked the corporation to settle the issue through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement and mediation. The court has given various alternatives if both parties agree.
