Justice B Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with the petitioner’s claim that land measuring 988.49 SQ M was never formally acquired by the state under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and Acquisition Procedure. Under this act remained incomplete. Despite this, the petitioner alleged, the land was unilaterally designated for public or conservation purposes in the master plan and a low-lying are being dug up further to create a lake.

The plea asked the court to set aside go ms. No. 363 dated August 21, 2010, and subsently go ms. No. 120 dated December 2, 2010, but only to the extent that these orders are affecting the specific property. The core of the argument is if the land was never legally acquired, the government has no right to alter classification or ownership status in official records or planning documents.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel B Mayur Reddy Said the state was wrongly claiming that a lake existed at the place, and shown a photograph to this effect. He is asked the state to formally acquire the land before declaring the site as a lake.

The government pleader, Opposing the petitioner’s claims, argued that the enture five-acre land now a part of the restored bathukamma kunta lake. He then submitted photographs of a water-filled lake to state that no land of the petitioner existed without the disputed area.

Reddy said that if the court class a photograph with a lake, he could submit a photo of the same place without a lake and also submit photographs bulldozers showing up the Land. Lake.

Adding that photograms do not reveal there is any land available on the sides of the lake, the senior council to show the actual location of the actual location of the Lake Site before.

The case was adjourned for a date two weeks later.