Revenue dept cannot resolve title dispute: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court ruled that where the property is ancestral and complex disputes of title are involved, approaching the revenue authorities is not the right solution. A bench of Chief Justice Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Shravan Kumar accordingly dismissed a writ appeal and confirmed the order of a single judge with regard to 23 acres of land in Kondapur of Rangareddy district.

Disputes between those who inherited the properties over claims to various parcels led them to move the revenue authorities for proper mutation of names in the revenue records. The led to orders from the revenue authorities. The matter reached the High Court and a single judge dealt with the extent and scope of jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and held that they are not substitutes for the courts of competent civil jurisdiction.

It is for the party concerned to invoke such jurisdiction so as to bar summary enquiry by the revenue authorities into issues of title, in particular given the circumstances as they would not be capable of deciding complicated questions of title. Agreeing with the single judge, the bench reiterated the limited powers of the revenue authorities.

HC refuses to halt prosecution

Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court refused to quash the prosecution against two businesspersons, Kavita Goel and Surender Agarwal, for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally.

The petitioners, directors of Tanmaya Industries, according to the complaint, had availed credit facilities by mortgaging a property as collateral security. The outstanding amount was over '37 crore.

The complaint by Sunil Kumar Agarwal stated that the petitioners had forged his signature. He also stated that he and the petitioners jointly owned the property of about 2 acres. The petitioners claimed that the complainant had gone to the bank and signed the documents, and that they are only sleeping partners in the firm. Refusing to quash the criminal case, Justice Surender pointed out that the petitioners admitted to being signatories to the loan document.

“It is not necessary that these petitioners should have fabricated the signatures of the defacto complainant. Using a forged document and filing it before the bank is an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC,” he said.

HC upholds IOCL cancelling contract

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld a decision Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in cancelling a contract with S.K. Enterprises at Neredmet in the city and refusing an order for trucks for the transportation of bulk petroleum products, The petitioner was the successful bidder for the contract for transportation of bulk petroleum products with bottom-loaded type tankers and trucks for three years.

The petitioner said he could not submit the required documents to due systemic delays. IOCL said the petitioner failed to produce the trolley trucks for physical inspection within the specified 90 days. Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Nanda pointed out that the petitioner had failed to adhere to the timelines as stipulated in the tender document.

Counsel Dominique argued that to interfere with the IOCL decision, the court would act only if the state or its instrumentalities had failed to act reasonably, fairly and in the public interest in awarding the contract. “The IOCL acted within the bounds of reasonableness and has not misused its statutory powers,” Justice Nanda said.