Telangana HC Dismisses Plea Against WWII Memorial Demolition
Telangana HC Rejects PIL Against WWII Memorial Demolition

The Telangana High Court has turned down a petition filed against the demolition of a World War II memorial located near Parade Grounds in Secunderabad. The court directed the petitioner, J Rama Krishna, a former member of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, to first submit a detailed representation to the concerned authorities regarding his grievance.

Petition Filed as PIL

Rama Krishna had filed the petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which was still in the scrutiny stage after objections from the registry. The bench noted that the petitioner must first approach the authorities concerned before moving a PIL.

Claims Based on Media Report

Citing a Times of India report published in February 2018, Rama Krishna claimed that the memorial was being demolished to make way for a proposed elevated corridor from Paradise Junction to Hakimpet on Rajiv Rahadaari. He stated that about 20.5 metres of Parade Grounds land abutting the road to Tivoli Junction would be acquired, and that officials had marked the memorial platform as a temporary benchmark for land acquisition.

Wide Pickt banner — collaborative shopping lists app for Telegram, phone mockup with grocery list

The memorial, built in 1950, honours soldiers from the erstwhile Hyderabad princely state who died in World War II. It bears inscriptions in English, Telugu, Kannada, and Marathi. Rama Krishna submitted photographs as evidence of his claims.

State Counsel's Assurance

The state counsel informed the court that the memorial was not being demolished and that there were proposals to relocate it. Discussions were underway among the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Cantonment Board, and defence authorities. The counsel assured that the structure would not be affected until a final decision is taken by all stakeholders.

Court's Observations

The bench observed that based on the evidence submitted and the response of the state counsel, it was not convinced that demolition would take place. The court questioned why the petitioner had not registered a grievance with authorities earlier. It directed him to file a representation and place a copy before the court, and adjourned the matter until after the summer vacation.

Pickt after-article banner — collaborative shopping lists app with family illustration