Hyderabad civic body demolishes structures for Unity Mall
Real Estate

Hyderabad civic body demolishes structures for Unity Mall

Tension arose in Raidurg Paigah village when officials from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the revenue department, under police protection, demolished several structures to make way for the construction of Unity Mall on 5.8 acres of land. The demolition led to strong protests from the affected families.
The residents claimed that the land belonged to Hyderabad Tanneries, represented by Mohammed Mumtaz Ali Khan. However, the Telangana Leather Industrial Development Corporation (TLIDC) asserted that they held the rights to 42 acres within the village, including the area currently occupied by a few families.
According to TLIDC’s vice chairman and managing director, Srinivas Naik, the corporation held sole ownership of the land, and the families living there had no legal claim to it. He stated that the demolition was carried out at the request of the mall owners to clear the dilapidated buildings and other structures so that construction could begin. Naik mentioned that the families had been repeatedly notified to vacate the premises before the demolition.
Naik also highlighted that TLIDC had agreed to lease out the 5.8 acres in the village of Serilingampally to the Telangana Trade Promotion Corporation for the construction of Unity Mall at a cost of over Rs 2 billion.
A family associated with Hyderabad Tanneries recounted how a senior bureaucrat had proposed an offer to vacate the property, which included a cash payment of Rs 50 crore and a one-acre plot in a different location. However, they refused the offer, stating that the property had been in their possession for over nine decades, passed down from their great-grandparents. The matter is currently pending in the high court, with a writ petition filed regarding the property. The same bureaucrat, who made the offer, allegedly threatened them, indicating that he would disregard the property’s title and pressured them to withdraw the petition, warning of severe consequences if they did not comply.
Residents reported being shocked when they woke up to the sound of JCBs demolishing their homes around 7 am, with no prior notice given before the demolition began. Mohammed Taheer Ali Khan, one of the residents, expressed that the demolition had left them and their young children stranded on the streets. He insisted that they had all the necessary documents and were awaiting the court’s final judgment. He also pointed out that the Dharani portal, upon entering the survey number, listed Hyderabad Tanneries as the pattadar.
Meanwhile, the Backward Classes and Transport Minister, Ponnam Prabhakar, stated on Monday that the government would demolish all illegal structures in full tank level (FTL) areas across all 33 districts. He urged NGOs and other civil society organisations with knowledge of these encroachments to bring them to the government’s attention.
The minister remarked that the ongoing drive against encroachments by HYDRAA in Greater Hyderabad and its surroundings was earning positive recognition for the government, with many sections of society expressing support for Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. He clarified that there was no vendetta involved, nor was the HYDRAA's encroachment drive specifically targeting the properties of opposition parties.

Tension arose in Raidurg Paigah village when officials from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the revenue department, under police protection, demolished several structures to make way for the construction of Unity Mall on 5.8 acres of land. The demolition led to strong protests from the affected families.The residents claimed that the land belonged to Hyderabad Tanneries, represented by Mohammed Mumtaz Ali Khan. However, the Telangana Leather Industrial Development Corporation (TLIDC) asserted that they held the rights to 42 acres within the village, including the area currently occupied by a few families.According to TLIDC’s vice chairman and managing director, Srinivas Naik, the corporation held sole ownership of the land, and the families living there had no legal claim to it. He stated that the demolition was carried out at the request of the mall owners to clear the dilapidated buildings and other structures so that construction could begin. Naik mentioned that the families had been repeatedly notified to vacate the premises before the demolition.Naik also highlighted that TLIDC had agreed to lease out the 5.8 acres in the village of Serilingampally to the Telangana Trade Promotion Corporation for the construction of Unity Mall at a cost of over Rs 2 billion.A family associated with Hyderabad Tanneries recounted how a senior bureaucrat had proposed an offer to vacate the property, which included a cash payment of Rs 50 crore and a one-acre plot in a different location. However, they refused the offer, stating that the property had been in their possession for over nine decades, passed down from their great-grandparents. The matter is currently pending in the high court, with a writ petition filed regarding the property. The same bureaucrat, who made the offer, allegedly threatened them, indicating that he would disregard the property’s title and pressured them to withdraw the petition, warning of severe consequences if they did not comply.Residents reported being shocked when they woke up to the sound of JCBs demolishing their homes around 7 am, with no prior notice given before the demolition began. Mohammed Taheer Ali Khan, one of the residents, expressed that the demolition had left them and their young children stranded on the streets. He insisted that they had all the necessary documents and were awaiting the court’s final judgment. He also pointed out that the Dharani portal, upon entering the survey number, listed Hyderabad Tanneries as the pattadar.Meanwhile, the Backward Classes and Transport Minister, Ponnam Prabhakar, stated on Monday that the government would demolish all illegal structures in full tank level (FTL) areas across all 33 districts. He urged NGOs and other civil society organisations with knowledge of these encroachments to bring them to the government’s attention.The minister remarked that the ongoing drive against encroachments by HYDRAA in Greater Hyderabad and its surroundings was earning positive recognition for the government, with many sections of society expressing support for Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. He clarified that there was no vendetta involved, nor was the HYDRAA's encroachment drive specifically targeting the properties of opposition parties.

Next Story
Equipment

Handling concrete better

Efficiently handling the transportation and placement of concrete is essential to help maintain the quality of construction, meet project timelines by minimising downtimes, and reduce costs – by 5 to 15 per cent, according to Sandeep Jain, Director, Arkade Developers. CW explores what the efficient handling of concrete entails.Select wellFirst, a word on choosing the right equipment, such as a mixer with a capacity aligned to the volume required onsite, from Vaibhav Kulkarni, Concrete Expert. “An overly large mixer will increase the idle time (and cost), while one that ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevated floors!

Raised access flooring, also called false flooring, is a less common interiors feature than false ceilings, but it has as many uses – if not more.A raised floor is a modular panel installed above the structural floor. The space beneath the raised flooring is typically used to accommodate utilities such as electrical cables, plumbing and HVAC systems. And so, raised flooring is usually associated with buildings with heavy cabling and precise air distribution needs, such as data centres.That said, CW interacted with designers and architects and discovered that false flooring can come in handy ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

The Variation Challenge

A variation or change in scope clause is defined in construction contracts to take care of situations arising from change in the defined scope of work. Such changes may arise due to factors such as additions or deletions in the scope of work, modifications in the type, grade or specifications of materials, alterations in specifications or drawings, and acts or omissions of other contractors. Further, ineffective planning, inadequate investigations or surveys and requests from the employer or those within the project’s area of influence can contribute to changes in the scope of work. Ext..

Advertisement

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?