Bench Refuses to Interdict on Order of Single Judge

 Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict an order of a single judge on a look out circular (LOC). A man had challenged the circular before a single judge, who suspended it. The petitioner’s wife, at whose instance the LOC was issued, filed a writ appeal contending that the issuance of the circular was legal and necessary to ensure the presence of her husband, who had left the country. Dealing with the intra-court appeal, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, reiterated its stance of not having to interfere at an interlocutory stage. The Chief Justice said that all the issues raised by the wife can be raised before the single judge.

Govt barred from taking over temple

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court granted an interim order restraining officials of the endowments department from taking over the management of Sri Bramarambika Mallikarjuna Temple at Malkajgiri in the city. The temple society filed the writ petition questioning the inquiry against the management without following the procedure prescribed under the Endowments Act. It was contended that it was a private temple and yearly audits and statutory procedures prescribed under law were being duly followed. Based on an anonymous complaint, the endowment department issued orders setting up an inquiry against the temple. The court, while suspending the inquiry, directed the temple committee not to make any attempt to alienate the assets of the temple till the counter is filed and the matter is decided.

HS dismisses PIL against revenue officials

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed in limine a PIL challenging the inaction of revenue authorities from preventing fraudulent transfer of sale deeds to cheat purchasers. The PIL was filed by Venkadavath Hanma Nayak relating to RR Green City at Kadthal village. The case of the petitioner was that even though the respondent had allotted 188 square yards of land, the registered document, viz., the sale deed, was being executed in respect of 160 square yards and the builder was executing a declaration that the remaining 20 square yards shall be allotted to the purchasers subject to availability of land in the future. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar pointed out that the dispute appeared to be between the purchasers and the seller. The layout in which the plots are situated is on private and not public land. Therefore, there is no element of public interest in the PIL. Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Aradhe observed: “It is also pertinent to mention that with regard to the grievance that the respondent seller has encroached on alleged government land, the petitioner admittedly has not submitted any representation to any of the authorities before filing this PIL. There is no material on record to infer that plot agreements pertain to government land and that respondent No. 10 has encroached it.”