GHMC has no right to demolish if it does not give permission, say corporator and Mayor

The Wednesday’s council meeting at the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation witnessed some paradoxical moments, with corporators as well as Mayor Gadwal Vijayalakshmi affirming that the corporation should not go ahead with demolition of unauthorised constructions.

The debate was kicked off by BRS corporators who demanded action against absentee member Baba Fasiuddin reportedly for abetting suicide of a BRS leader in Borabanda. The deceased leader who fell to his death from his unauthorisedly constructed home in SRT Nagar area, was alleged to have been harassed by Mr.Fasiuddin, who strongly denied the charge.

The GHMC had reportedly issued notices to the leader over unauthorised construction, which, the BRS leaders allege was done at the behest of Mr. Fasiuddin.

In connection with this, corporator Dedeepya Rao questioned why notarised documents are not accepted for according building permissions. While there were over 200 houses built illegally with ground plus five floors, only the BRS leader was targeted with threats of demolition.

Chief City Planner K. Srinivas tried to reason that as per the GHMC Act, 1955, sale deed is a mandatory requirement for issue of building permissions, and that notary documents are not accepted as proof of ownership.

Bansilalpet corporator Hemalatha Laxmipathi, at this juncture, came up with the argument that if GHMC would not accord permission on the basis of notarised documents, it did not have the right to bring down the structure, which defied all the rationale of the Act.

Mayor Ms. Vijayalakshmi, without much thought, endorsed the argument, and repeated the statement, much to the amusement of officials and other corporators.

One more issue was raised during the meeting, about encroachment of seven acres of government land in Uppal, which is being constructed upon, based on the permission obtained on a different survey number. Commissioner R.V. Karnan said the permission was given based on a favourable report by the District Collector in 2021. Later, notices were issued, and the builder approached the court.