The Telangana High Court has issued a status quo order, which puts a stop to the planned demolition of actor Nagarjuna's N-Convention Centre in Hyderabad.

Justice T. Vinod Kumar acknowledged Nagarjuna's claim that he had not received a show cause notice. The judge has instructed the respondent authorities to provide evidence of how and through which method the notice was delivered.

"Though the respondent authorities claimed to have served the show-cause notice, the said claim is disputed by the petitioner. Thus, for the said reason, the respondent authorities are required to demonstrate to this Court the manner and mode of service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner before passing the speaking order," the order dated August 24 stated.

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), alleging that demolition of the N-Convention Centre began without proper notice.

He claimed that demolition activities commenced on August 24 before he was served with the necessary speaking order dated August 8, 2024, which was only delivered after the demolition had started. He argued that this action violated a prior status quo order issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department, which remained in effect.

Additionally, he contended that the demolition was conducted without observing the 15-day period granted to address alleged unauthorized constructions.

In response, the State argued that the authorities acted lawfully, asserting that the construction was unauthorized and situated within the Full Tank Level (FTL) and Buffer Zone of the Thammidikunta Tank. They 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.

The State also emphasized the need to verify the petitioner's claims regarding ongoing civil proceedings and the resolution of a Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

The Court first emphasized that the State must demonstrate how and by what means the notice was served. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies in the respondents' claims about the extent of the Thammidikunta Tank, with respondents stating an FTL of approximately 29 acres, while previous proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act indicated it was around 20 acres.

"Thus, the stand of the respondent authorities in the impugned proceedings is contrary to the stand taken before the Special Court. That being so, the respondent-authorities without actually having determined the extent of the tank by conducting a survey are claiming that the said tank is spread over Acs.29-24 guntas in respect of which, admittedly a civil Suit is pending for adjudication," the Court observed.

The Court took a prima facie view that the authorities should not have initiated proceedings while a prior status quo order from the MA and UD department was still in effect. As a result, the Court issued a status quo order and scheduled further hearings for September 9.

Nagarjuna was represented by advocate P. Sri Raghuram. The State of Telangana was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, who appeared for the Additional Advocate General's office. The GHMC and the Zonal Commissioner of the Serilingampally Zone were represented by advocate MAK Mukheed, while HYDRAA was represented by advocate K. Ravinder Reddy.