The Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a writ plea challenging the unauthorised construction of a compound wall near a historic tomb built by a French General during the Nizam’s rule. A two-judge panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara is hearing the appeal filed by the State Archaeological Museum. The case revolves around land in Survey No. 318/1, originally owned by the VIIth Nizam of Hyderabad and subsequently sold to private individuals through registered sale deeds. In 1960-61, revenue records mistakenly classified the land as “Sarkari” (government property), prompting legal disputes. Following multiple legal proceedings, including a petition filed by the Nizam under the AP (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, the ownership of the land was reaffirmed in favour of private owners. The dispute escalated when the State Archaeological Museum constructed a compound wall, allegedly enclosing over three acres of the land without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The affected landowners, including Vegasena Venkata Satyanarayana and four others, approached the City Civil Court, which ruled in their favour and granted an injunction against the archaeological department. The civil court also confirmed that “Raymond’s Obelisk” was not situated within the disputed land. An appellate court upheld the ruling, reinforcing that the government could not claim ownership of the property after prior judicial decisions affirmed the rights of petitioners. A single judge later ruled that the archaeological museum engaged in unauthorised encroachment and ordered the removal of the compound wall and dismissed the department’s claims due to inconsistencies and a lack of documentary evidence. The panel will continue to hear the writ appeal.Location of temporary fruit market politically motivated: HCJustice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court reaffirmed that the government must honour its commitment to establish a permanent market at Koheda and avoid acting under external influence or political pressure. The judge quashed a GO dated September 19, 2023, which proposed the establishment of a temporary fruit market at Mamidipally (Pahadishariff) under the Agricultural Market Committee (AMC) Gaddiannaram and ruled that the government’s decision was arbitrary, irrational, and an abuse of power, violating its prior commitment to developing a permanent market at Koheda. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by the Pragathi Fruits Commission Agents Association. The petitioner argued that the government had already undertaken to shift the market from Gaddiannaram to Batasingaram temporarily, with the long-term plan of establishing a full-fledged market at Koheda, as per GO dated February 13, 2020. It was contended that the sudden move to set up another temporary market at Pahadishariff was politically motivated, lacked justification, and would disrupt business operations for traders and farmers. The judge observed that the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 does not authorise the establishment of multiple temporary markets. It was also noted that the director of Agricultural Marketing ignored serious objections raised by stakeholders, including a letter from the AMC’s Special Grade secretary, which warned that another temporary market would destabilise ongoing business at Batasingaram. The government already sanctioned over ₹350 crore for the development of Koheda Market, making the establishment of a new temporary market unnecessary. The judge further found that the Pahadishariff market decision was rushed, with proposals being submitted and approved within only five days, despite a status quo order issued by the High Court on September 19, 2023. The move appeared to be influenced by private associations rather than a genuine need for an additional market.Inclusion of schedule area in municipality challengedA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a PIL challenging inclusion of Palvocha Manuguru of Bhadradri Kothagudem district and Mandamarri of Mancherial district, scheduled area villages into municipalities. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara is dealing with a PIL filed by Bhukya Deva Naik. The petitioner contended that the scheduled area villages are declared as municipalities in contravention of the Article 243 ZC3 in Part IXA of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that state failed to hold elections to the said gram panchayats since last 20 Years thereby depriving the rights of Scheduled Tribes and public at large. The petitioner sought a direction against State Election Commissioner to conduct the local body elections to the scheduled area gram panchayats. The panel directed the state to file their response within three weeks.HC to decide on plea on road encroachmentThe Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea filed by five agriculturists, challenging the alleged encroachment of a public road in Shameerpet Village, Jangaon district. Justice T. Madhavi Devi took on file a writ plea filed by the Kamsani Bhaskar Reddy and four others, challenging the inaction of the Jangaon district collector and other authorities in removing illegally erected boundary poles blocking access to the petitioners’ houses. According to the petitioners, the unofficial respondents encroached upon the public road at Masjid Road, Shameerpet Village, by erecting boundary poles, obstructing ingress and egress to the residence of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that despite submitting a written representation and receiving an endorsement, the respondent authorities failed to take any action. The petitioners allege that the actions of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioners sought immediate direction to clear the public road by removing the encroachments. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, the judge posted the matter for further adjudication.
Source link
