The Telangana High Court has issued a status quo order, effectively stopping the demolition of actor Nagarjuna’s N-Convention Centre in Hyderabad (N Convention v State of Telangana and Ors.).
Justice T Vinod Kumar acknowledged Nagarjuna’s claim that he had not received a show-cause notice and instructed the respondent authorities to demonstrate how and when the notice was served.
“Although the respondent authorities assert that the show-cause notice was served, this claim is contested by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent authorities must demonstrate to this Court the manner and mode of service of the notice before passing the speaking order,” stated the order dated August 24.
The actor approached the Court to challenge the actions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), arguing that the demolition of the N Convention Centre premises began without proper notice.
Nagarjuna claimed that the demolition activities started early on August 24, before he was served with the speaking order dated August 8, 2024, which was only delivered after the demolition had commenced.
He argued that this action violated a prior status quo order issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department, which is still in effect.
Furthermore, he contended that the demolition was conducted without respecting the 15-day period granted to remove alleged unauthorized constructions.
In contrast, the State maintained that the authorities acted within the law, arguing 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 contended that under Section 405(a) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, no notice was required for demolishing unauthorized constructions in such zones.
Additionally, the State emphasized the need 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 emphasized the importance of the State demonstrating how the notice was served and noted discrepancies in the respondent authorities’ claims about the size of the Thammidikunta Tank. While the respondents asserted the FTL covered approximately 29 acres, previous proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act suggested it was around 20 acres.
“Thus, the respondent authorities’ position in the impugned proceedings contradicts their previous stance before the Special Court. Without conducting a survey to determine the tank’s extent, the authorities claim it spans 29 acres, even though a civil suit regarding this is still pending,” the Court observed.
The Court also took a preliminary view that the authorities should not have initiated proceedings when a prior status quo order by the MA and UD department was still in effect.
Consequently, the Court issued a status quo order and scheduled the next hearing for September 9.
Nagarjuna was represented by advocate P. Sri Raghuram.
The State of Telangana was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, who appeared on behalf of the Additional Advocate General’s office.
Advocate MAK Mukheed represented GHMC and the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone.
Advocate K. Ravinder Reddy represented HYDRAA.
