Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the government to notify it on August 9 why he avoided the decision about removing areas outside the twin reservoir catch zone, Sagar Himayat and Osman Sagar, from PurView GO111.
It banned industrial activities or large housing in the catchment area spread in 84 villages and within a 10 km radius of the twin reservoir.
The removal of this purview will mean the appreciation of real estate value in the area.
Chairman of the Chairman of Hima Hima Kohli and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy took the Imper Petition submitted by Agni Agro Tech Limited who was looking for the elimination of 17 hectares in Vattinagulapalli, one of 84 villages, because the land was outside the purview of the catchment area.
The bench asked the state government about why landowners who fell outside the water catchment area had to suffer the restrictions imposed by GO 111.
“Strange that the government did not want to act on reports treated by the Committee who studied the area in the country’s example,” Bench said , It tried to know the attitude of the government about this problem with the next hearing date and posting this case up to 9 Agni Agni Agro Tech could be applied in the petition and urged the court to continue to go 111.
KS Murthy’s advice urged the court to not disburse the purpose of the goal intended to protect environment and lake.
“If the country wants to melt it, let it be in harmony with the procedure set and we do not want this court to be a party for such decisions,” he said.
Appearing for the company, Senior Advocate K Vivek Reddy argues that land belongs to several landowners, such as companies he represented, is outside the catch area of ​​the lake and reports of environmental protection and research institutions (EPTRI) have confirmed the same.
It is a state government that institutionalizes EPTRI studies and all recommendations made by the Institute are accepted by the state.
“In fact, in one of the delayed cases before the High Court, the state government even applies that the area that falls outside the scope of the catchment area must be removed from PurView Go 111,” he said.
“We did not oppose GO 111 who protected the water catchment area.
What we were looking for was the removal of PurView Go 111 areas lying outside the catch zone,” he said.