HYDERABAD: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed HYDRAA to inspect the site and issue notices to all parties concerned in a dispute challenging a proposed demolition. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Nalla Malla Reddy, educationist, challenging the actions of local authorities regarding the proposed demolition of a compound wall in Korremula village, Ghatkesar mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioner alleged that HYDRAA’s move to demolish the compound wall enclosing plots in Sy No. 739/A of Korremula and specific plots in Divyanagar Layout Phase II of Kachivanisingaram was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to consider his explanation, which was submitted in response to a notice issued upon him. It was argued that the demolition plan violated the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, as well as the constitutional rights of the petitioner, who further claimed that the notice and subsequent actions of the respondents lacked jurisdiction and were carried out in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider their explanation and withdraw the demolition notice. Additionally, the petitioner requested a directive to halt any further proceedings initiated by the deputy city planner, Hyderabad. After hearing preliminary arguments, the judge sought responses from the respondent authorities, asking them to justify their actions and to set aside the demolition order issued by them.Murder conviction set asideA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction against Marri Sudhakar Reddy and four others in case of murder of two women in August 2007. The deceased women Susheela Devi (D1) and her daughter Manju Rani (D2) went missing. They were last seen in a car with Sudhakar Reddy (A1), the son of the deceased No.1. The deceased went missing and their bodies were subsequently found in the village outskirts. Chinthapally police registered the case and transferred it to Saroornagar. On the basis of confession and recoveries, the investigators charged the accused, who were sentenced, subsequently. The panel of Justice K. Surendar and Justice Anil Kumar set aside the punishment finding multiple errors in the reasoning of the sessions judge. The court found that nowhere in the evidence of the investigation officers, is it mentioned as to how the accused were identified. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted for P.W. 9 to identify A1 the panel added. Authoring the verdict, Justice Surrender said the recovery of the gold ornaments from hollow of the tamarind tree also is doubtful. There is no reason why all the appellants have taken the ornaments and kept the ornaments in the hollow of a tree except for a gold chain, which was taken to P.W. 15. The ornaments ought to have been produced before the magistrate for rules of practice. The said seizure of ornaments from the tamarind tree is doubtful when the said tree is in the open and accessible to everyone and at a distance of 100 km from Hyderabad. A1 and A2 are residents of Kothagudem and A3 and A4 are residents of Hyderabad. Every circumstance of (i) last seen theory; (ii) Arrest; (iii) recovery; (iv) motive are all suspicious and doubtful. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. For the said reason, the conviction of the appellants is set aside, the panel said. HC to decide on septuagenarian’s plea against LICJustice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea filed by a septuagenarian challenging the inaction on the part of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and other authorities in relation to the discrepancy in the maturity amount under LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policy. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Mansurali Kamarudin Bavani, alleging that despite his representations, the respondents failed to take any action in respect of the discrepancy pointed out by him. The petitioner also alleges dubious sale of the LIC policy to the petitioner by the agent and cheating by taking continuous premium for 10 years without communicating for once that the Policy was withdrawn. The petitioner alleged that the actions of the respondent authorities are in violation of the principle of utmost good faith and all settled principles of law. Consequently, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to either provide the sum assured on maturity as intimated by his LIC agent or to refund the total premium paid with interest along with compensation. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge ordered notice to the respondents and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Source link
