TS High Court reserves judgement in KTR farmhouse row

The farmhouse at Janwad in Shankarpalli mandal, Rangareddy district, is being constructed in violation of the orders issued by the municipal administration department, Mr. Revanth had alleged.

The High Court had earlier in its interim order dated 10 June 2020 stayed the order passed by the NGT constituting a committee of experts to visit the farmhouse and submit a report on violations if any, and the consequent actions to be taken.

On Friday, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Rajashekar Reddy and Justice P. Naveen Rao heard the arguments of senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy on behalf of KTR; Raghuram on behalf of Pradeep Reddy, the owner of the land; and S.S Prasad on behalf of Mr. Revanth.

Mr. Niranjan Reddy, in his arguments, submitted that Mr. Revanth had filed the application before NGT with malicious and malafide intention. He wanted to drag KTR into the proceedings despite knowing fully well that he was not the owner of the land on which the farmhouse was constructed. He sought the quashing of the NGT proceedings.

Raghuram in his submissions said his petitioner Pradeep Reddy, who is the actual owner of the land, has not been made a party to the proceedings before NGT while he was a necessary party and therefore the question of his client approaching the Supreme Court as an alternative remedy does not arise.

S.S Prasad, making arguments on behalf of Mr. Revanth, refuted the charges of malicious and malafide intention on Mr. Revanth's part in initiating proceedings before NGT. He said that his client came to know of the illegal construction in the catchment area of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes in February 2020. When he went to visit the site, he was detained by the police and sent to jail for 14 days. The fact of him belonging to the opposition party is not germane to the case and the real intention of his client is to protect the lakes, especially when huge floods are resulting due to encroachment of lakes, he argued.

Mr. Prasad contended that the NGT Act clearly provides an alternative remedy to approach the Supreme Court and that these Writ Petitions are not maintainable.

Additional Advocate General J. Ramchander Rao submitted to the court that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene and subject to judicial review the proceedings before the NGT, which was nothing but a creation of a statute.

The Bench reserved judgment in both the Writ Petitions