HYDERABAD: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and state authorities to refrain from interfering with the possession of 12 rightful owners of lands situated in Mamidipally village, Rangareddy district. This direction came in response to a writ plea challenging the actions of the respondent authorities in allegedly disposing of 168 acres of land without following due process of law. The judge heard a writ plea filed by N. Ravinder and eleven others, who claimed that they were the rightful owners of the land, having acquired title through deeds tracing back to a Royal firman issued by the Nizam 1945. The petitioners argued that officials of the TSIIC attempted to forcibly take over their lands and allocate them to third parties, in violation of existing court orders and principles of natural justice. The petitioners further pointed out that interim orders were already obtained in previous related writ petitions, restraining authorities from interfering with their possession. On the other hand, the respondent authorities contended that the notarized sale deeds claimed by the petitioners and their vendors were never acted upon by revenue authorities, nor were any mutation proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh or Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Acts. It was also argued that the petitioners failed to file declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, or the Urban Land Ceiling Act.Accordingly, the respondent alleged that neither the petitioners nor their vendors held valid legal title or possession of the disputed land, rendering their claims invalid. According to the respondents, the government directed the director of animal husbandry on April 17, 2000, to transfer possession of land in Kancha Imarath and Mamidipally Kancha to the then APIIC, which was completed on April 22, 2000. The government later formalized the alienation of 881.32 acres in Mamidipally Village under GO dated February 21, 2009, after APIIC had already paid compensation of ₹7.29 crore, as per the GO dated September 12, 2003. The land was mutated in the revenue records under the Corporation’s name, and the corporation asserts continuous possession of the land. The judge, after hearing all the arguments re-referred to key precedents, including the Supreme Court judgment in Yeshwant Singh, B. Jagdish Singh and a privy council ruling, reiterating the legal principle that no individual or authority may dispossess landholders forcibly without recourse to the law. The judge observed that the respondents failed to provide evidence of legal acquisition or possession of the disputed lands from the petitioners. Declaring the actions of the respondents illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the judge directed the authorities to refrain from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Furthermore, the respondent authorities were also barred from allotting the disputed lands to third parties unless due process, including proper surveys and legal procedures, is strictly followed.Appointment of director of prosecutions comes under cloud againJustice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court is hearing a writ plea challenging the appointment of K.V. Rajini in the office of director of prosecutions as illegal and contrary to law. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by A. Shanker seeking a declaration that he is deemed to have completed his probation in the category of public prosecutor/joint director of prosecution category-3 in the feeder category in terms of the relevant rules. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the authorities that they issue an order to the said effect and consequently declare that he is entitled to all the consequential benefits for next promotional post on par with the persons mentioned in a GO dated September 19, 2024. The petitioner is further challenging a GO dated November 5, 2024 posting Rajani in the office of the director of prosecutions as illegal and contrary to law and consequently posting in the said position. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.Tardy investigation into the death of Asha worker’s son alleged Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the investigation by the state police into the death of a Asha worker’s son. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kududula Manjula seeking transfer of the case of her son to SIT, CBI, Clues Team or any investigation agency. The petitioner is seeking further investigation to deduce her son’s cause of death by checking call data on his phone before and after he went missing and examination of all suspects. The petitioner is also seeking consideration of the final opinion post mortem report issued by the government civil hospital and CCTV footage near and around the pond where the offence took place. The petitioner alleged that the investigation authorities did not take any prudent steps to conduct a proper investigation. The petitioner also contended that the investigation authorities examined 36 witnesses and arrived at a conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicide but not suicide. The investigation authorities also concluded that there is no incriminating evidence to establish the cause of death. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing.Bank card dues: Senior citizen complaints of harassmentJustice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed Nacharam police to register a crime against Shaha Finlease Private Limited and its collection manager in a writ plea filed by a septuagenarian. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by S. Chandra Reddy, a retired senior citizen alleging non-registration of crime by the station house officer (SHO) of Nacharam police station in registering the crime against the respondents. It was the case of the petitioner that he had cleared all pending payments upon his credit card back in 2006 itself and no balance was pending. Despite the same, the petitioner alleged that the respondents continued to issue notices of payments and harass the petitioner with constant threat calls, even to the extent of sending goons to his house. Fearing for his safety from miscreants frequenting his house, the petitioner approached the police seeking registration of crime in the said matter, which the petitioner alleged the respondents failed to do. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge observed that on the face of it, the facts reflect a cognizable offence and therefore the police authorities were bound to register the case against the respondents. Accordingly, the judge directed the police authorities to register the crime as alleged by the petitioner.
Source link
