Telangana High Court stays demolition of actor Nagarjuna's convention centre

The Telangana High Court has issued a status quo order, effectively halting the demolition of actor Nagarjuna's N-Convention Centre in Hyderabad [N Convention v State of Telangana and Ors.]..Justice T Vinod Kumar noted Nagarjuna's submission that he had not been served a show cause notice and directed the respondent authorities to demonstrate the manner and mode in which the notice was served.."Though the respondent authorities claimed to have served the show-cause notice, the said claim is disputed by the petitioner. Thus, for the said reason, the respondent authorities are required to demonstrate to this Court the manner and mode of service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner before passing the speaking order," the order dated August 24 stated..The actor moved the Court challenging the actions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), alleging that the demolition of the N Convention Centre premises began without proper notice.He claimed that the authorities commenced 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 began.He argued that this action violated a prior order of status quo passed by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department, which is still in effect. Additionally, it was contended that the demolition was carried out without adhering to the 15-day period granted to remove alleged unauthorized constructions..On the other hand, the State contended that the authorities had acted within the law, asserting that the construction by the petitioner was unauthorized and fell within the Full Tank Level (FTL) and Buffer Zone of the Thammidikunta Tank.It 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 pointed out the necessity to verify the petitioner's claims regarding pending civil proceedings and the closure of a Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act..The Court first emphasized the necessity of the State to demonstrate the manner and mode in which the notice was served.Further, 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."Thus, the stand of the respondent authorities in the impugned proceedings is contrary to the stand taken before the Special Court. That being so, the respondent-authorities without actually having determined the extent of the tank by conducting a survey are claiming that the said tank is spread over Acs.29-24 guntas in respect of which, admittedly a civil Suit is pending for adjudication," the Court observed.Furthermore, the Court took a prima facie view that the authorities ought not to have initiated proceedings when a prior order of status quo passed by the MA and UD department was still in effect.Accordingly, the Court passed a status quo order and posted the matter for further hearing on September 9..Nagarjuna was represented by Senior Advocate P Sri Raghuram.The State of Telangana was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the office of the Additional Advocate General.GHMC and the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone were represented by advocate MAK Mukheed.HYDRAA was represented by advocate K Ravinder Reddy..[Read Order]