HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Friday pulled up the state for its lackadaisical response towards a PIL accusing Vasavi Infra of building residential towers within the full tank level/buffer zone of Komatikunta, a lake in Bachupally.
The HC also questioned the state’s sincerity and said the official machinery appeared to be on the realtor’s side instead of working towards protecting the lake by assisting the court with relevant information.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Anil Kumar has now directed the revenue, irrigation and HMDA wings to submit the lake records by April 30.
The PIL filed by Akula Satish of Nizampet charged officials with colluding with Vasavi Infra and allowing multi-storied towers within the FTL of Komatikunta.
Court rejects Vasavi’s plea to go ahead with construction
Petitioner’s counsel T Venkat Raju Goud said the state’s own surveys have conclusively proved that tower 8 and 9 fell within the FTL.
Directing Goud to produce photo of these two towers, the bench rued: “We have no other option. We told the HMDA counsel in the last hearing to engage a senior counsel because their lawyer is unable to tell us clearly whether these towers fall within the FTL. She says things are not clear even after two surveys.”
“This clearly shows that authorities are sailing with the realtor,” the bench said while noticing that no senior counsel was present even on Friday.
The bench also refused to agree with Vasavi’s counsel B Mayur Reddy’s plea to permit construction till final orders merely on the assurance that they will demolish them if it turned out to be FTL in future.
“We know the reasons for your confidence. You are sure of selling it to third parties who will come to court saying they bought it because construction was permitted by authorities. We do not want to create a Noida dynamite situation here,” the bench said in a lighter vein while firmly rejecting the plea.
When petitioner’s counsel informed the court that both towers were completed and Vasavi was selling flats, the bench questioned the company’s counsel who admitted that tower 8 was finished and they had sold 50% of flats.
