Hyderabad: The state government once again lost its cases on the Hafeezpet lands in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The apex court dismissed the special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the state government challenging the High Court directives in two different cases. One of the cases pertained to granting of building permission and the other to registration of properties in Survey No.s 78 and 80 of Hafeezpet.
On six earlier occasions, the apex court had dismissed the state government’s contention of ownership of the Hafeezpet lands.
Deccan Chronicle had reported on Monday on the government’s discriminatory approach against common people and in favour of the super rich in granting building permissions in the controversial Sy No. 78. (Hafeezpet Sy No. 78: HC initiates contempt case, January 25).
The Supreme Court division bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul dismissed the SLP filed by the government challenging the High Court order directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to sanction building permission to one A. Shalivahana Reddy who had applied to construct a house in 300 sq yds. “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order,” the Bench said while dismissing the SLP.
In another case, the state government had approached the apex court challenging the High Court’s interim order issued on October 1, 2019, directing the authorities concerned to delete Sy No. 78 to 80 from the prohibitory register. The HC made a clear observation that the copy of the gazette notification issued by the government on September 26, 2013, including Sy No.s 78 to 80 in the prohibitory register under Section 22A of the Registration Act was not furnished by the Special GP.
The High Court asked the government to file a counter and posted the case for further hearing on October 17, 2019. The government instead of pursuing the case in the High Court preferred an SLP in the apex court for reasons best known to it. “The impugned order being in the nature of an interim order, and that too passed on 01.10.2019, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,” the SC said.
