HC hears PIL against LRS, seeks govt stand

Hyderabad: The High Court on Thursday issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD), Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) directing them to file a counter on the constitutional validity of Government Order Ms No 131 of 31-08-2020 issued by MA&UD, through which the State government has expanded the scope of regularisation of lands spread across the State.

The High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy heard the public interest litigation filed by Forum for Good Governance, Hyderabad seeking to declare the action of the State in issuing GO Ms No 131 of 31-08-2020, which contains regularisation of unapproved and illegal layouts in the State for both rural and urban areas as illegal, arbitrary and malafide.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel Satyam Reddy informed the bench that the GO cited was issued in complete violation of all possible Acts under the law i.e., GHMC Act, HMDA Act, Municipalities Act, Panchayat Raj Act and Telangana Urban Areas Development Act. Further, he stated that the government has not left any area in the State and was forcing the people to pay the regularisation amount. People in rural and urban areas were facing problems in making payments towards LRS. Satyam Reddy further insisted upon the court to pass an interim direction stating that the decision of the State government would be subjected to the outcome of the PIL.

Chief Justice Chauhan, after hearing the contents of the petitioner's counsel, observed that "if the petition is allowed, it means the GO is set aside, the GO will go. So, let us hear from the State as to what it's stand is." Advocate General Banda Shivananda Prasad informed the court that the PIL requires a final hearing and sought two weeks time to file counter-affidavits. The matter to be heard next on October 8, 2020.

Komati demands suspension of LRS G O

Bhongir MP Komatireddy Venkat Reddy also filed a PIL seeking the suspension of GO No 131 dated 31-08-2020 issued by the MA&UD.

The PIL contends that regularisation of the plots upon payment of penalty charges would be detrimental to common people. The impugned GO only prohibits granting of fresh sewerage, water and electricity connection to the unapproved layouts, but does not deal with such illegal layouts where such connections have already been granted.

HC dismisses plea against Yadadri shrine EO

Hyderabad: The High Court Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy heard a public interest litigation on Thursday filed by N Narsing Rao, a resident of Yadagirigutta, seeking to direct the State government to take action against Geeta Reddy, Executive Officer of Yadadri temple, Yadagirigutta, for not hoisting the national flag on the independence day.

Counsel for the petitioner, D Ramakrishna, submitted that on August 15, Geeta Reddy has not hoisted the national flag. However, the flag has been displayed in the office room of the Executive Officer. The counsel requested the court to direct the State government to punish the EO under Section 8 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 for disrespecting the national flag.

The Division Bench pointing where was the bar in the law that one cannot paste the national flag on the wall, it observed that in a pandemic situation, how can one compel a person to hoist a flag? It is an exceptional time if flags were not being hoisted, people are not being asked to congregate, it is understandable.

"First, we have to worry about national health. The medical bulletin of the State government clearly mentions that there are more than 2,000 positive cases being discovered every day in our State, and yet, you want people to congregate, how can that be?" Chief Justice Chauhan pointed out.

The Bench observed that mentioning the PIL as frivolous and did not find any merit in the case. Hence, the plea was dismissed.