A vacation bench comprising Justice K.C. Bhanu and Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday expressed its disinclination to vacate interim orders granted suspending operation of an order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai restraining the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from dewatering Hussainsagar Lake of the city.

The bench was hearing an application by the Save Our Urban Lakes a voluntary organisation represented by Ms Lubna Saraswath of the city, seeking vacation of interim order granted on May 7.

The Tribunal on May 1, 2015 passed an interim order in an application by the Save Our Urban Lakes restraining the GHMC from further dewatering Hussain Sagar and transferring to any other water bodies till its further orders.

The GHMC has challenged the tribunal’s order before the HC. Counsel for SOUL submitted that the GHMC has been dewatering the lake by expanding existing sluices of the lake.

He said on May 7, the advocate-general of Telangana submitted before the HC that the GHMC has never undertaken any work of completely dewatering the Hussainsagar nor did it undertake the work of de-silting the lake.

He said that the GHMC was acting contrary to the submission made by the AG. The bench asked K. Ramakrishna Reddy, advocate-general why the GHMC approached the High Court directly against the tribunal order without approaching the concerned appellate authority.

Citing several judgments of the apex court, the AG said that the HC has power to entertain petitions against the tribunal order. When counsel for SOUL insisted for vacation of the interim order, contending that the HC has granted interim order without giving opportunity to them of being heard, the bench told counsel to move a contempt case if he found that the GHMC is violating the interim order and posted the case after the vacation.

AP gets notice on Bhogapuram

Justice A.V. Sesha Sai, a vacation judge of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday issued notices to the AP government on petitions challenging the action of the government in initiating steps to acquire lands for Greenfield International Airport at Bhogapuram in Vizianagaram district through land pooling scheme.

K. Satyanarayana Raju and 81 other farmers of Bhogapuram mandal moved the plea stating that the government has issued a GO conferring its powers on the district collector for acquiring lands for the airport.

The petitioners contended that the action of the government was contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compen-sation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabi-litation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and its Rules.

They brought to the notice of the court that earlier the Centre had proposed expansion of Naval Alternative Operations Base at Rambilli village of the mandal and initiated steps for land acquisition.

They said that this court has granted status quo on the acquisition when some of the farmers approached the court.

The petitioners urged the court to declare the action of the respondents in acquiring/collecting their lands, under the guise of land pooling system as illegal and in the meanwhile grant stay of all further proceedings till final disposal of the petition.

AP told to file counter affidavit

Justice K.C. Bhanu, a vacation judge of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday directed the AP government to file a counter affidavit to petitions by farmers complaining that the authorities were going ahead with the consent applications given by them under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 in spite of their revoking the consent.

The judge was dealing with a batch of petitions by scores of farmers of Guntur district seeking directions to the authorities not to proceed further with the consent applications submitted by them under the AP Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2015 and to delete their lands from the land pooling scheme of the CRDA Act.

They alleged that the consent was obtained under coercion and threat by the authorities, later they sent ‘revocation letters’ to the officials but there was no response to it till date.

Dammalapati Srinivas additional advocate general told the court according to the notification, the deputy collector concerned is the competent authority to deal with consent or revocation applications, but the petitioners have not sent the revocation letters to the concerned authority.

While directing the government to file the counter affidavit on the allegation of petitioners’ the judge posted the matter to June 9.