The Telangana High Court has issued a status quo order, halting the demolition of actor Nagarjuna Akkineni’s N-Convention Centre in Hyderabad.
A single bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar noted Nagarjuna’s claim that he had not been served a show cause notice and directed the respondent authorities to demonstrate how and when the notice was served.
Nagarjuna moved the Court challenging the actions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA). He alleged that the demolition of the N-Convention Centre began without proper notice. He claimed that the authorities started demolition activities early on August 24, even before serving him with the necessary speaking order dated August 8, 2024, which was only delivered after the demolition had commenced.
He argued that this action violated a prior order of status quo issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department, which remains in effect. Additionally, he contended that the demolition was carried out without adhering to the 15-day period granted to remove alleged unauthorized constructions.
Conversely, the State argued that the authorities acted within the law, asserting that the petitioner’s construction was unauthorized and located within the Full Tank Level (FTL) and Buffer Zone of the Thammidikunta Tank. The State further argued that according to Section 405(a) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, no notice was required for demolishing unauthorized constructions in such zones.
The State also emphasized the need to verify the petitioner’s claims concerning pending civil proceedings and the closure of a Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The Court first highlighted the necessity for the State to demonstrate how and when the notice was served.
Additionally, the Court observed discrepancies in the respondent authorities’ claims regarding the extent of the Thammidikunta Tank. While the respondents claimed the FTL covered approximately 29 acres, previous proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act indicated the extent was around 20 acres.
The Court took a prima facie view that the authorities should not have initiated proceedings while a prior order of status quo issued by the MA and UD Department was still in effect. Consequently, the Court issued a status quo order and scheduled the matter for further hearing on September 9.
