HC Dismisses Writ Petitioners in Land Dispute Case

HYDERABAD: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of four writ petitioners involving over 53 acres of prime land in Raidurg of Serilingampally. The petitioners had questioned the attempt of the authorities “to demolish the fencing without notice” and sought a declaration that the action was malicious. The petitioner also sought a direction to the Telangana State industrial infrastructure corporation not to erect fencing on the land.

The government contended that the land was in surplus of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) and that it had taken over the excess 99 acres and classified it ‘sarkari kharizkhata’.

Justice Vijaysen Reddy in a 58-page order chronicled the developments, including the involvement of Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society, Jagadisa Realtors Ltd, and subsequent purchasers.

“It is settled law that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself has. The society itself does not have any power, authority, title or ownership to transfer the property and it is only the alleged agreement holder of the original owners… that by itself does not confer any title or ownership on the society,” he said.

Dealing with the petitions, the judge said that the petitioners were not entitled to any notice since they were not owners or possessors of the land. He said that multiple sale deeds executed by the society from 2006 to 2008 were in the absence of a proper sale deed in its favour.

An inquiry was conducted into the manner in which the society sought exemption after executing the sale deed under the ULCA. It was found that “the applicant, P. Ramakoteshwar Rao, with ulterior motives created a fabricated agreement of sale and submitted the same before the district registrar, Ranga Reddy, for validation in an individual capacity though he was not a party to the document,” Justice Vijaysen Reddy observed.

“One R. Srinivasan, who is not connected to the property, is shown to have executed the agreement of sale, dated 19.03.1982, and the authorised person, A. Satyanarayana, had not joined the deal,” the judge said. Thus, the document was not an appropriate and accurate deed for entering registrations by the joint sub-registrar.” The judge recorded a finding that the claim of possession and title was misconceived.

Senior counsel Harendra Prashad pointed to the voluminous records, including cases filed in the civil court, land grabbing court and proceedings before the ULCA authorities. He said the documents they relied upon were declared null and void, with the matter going right up to the Supreme Court. The cancellation of sale deeds in this regard attained finality when the civil appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court, he said.

Dealing with the claim of various petitioners that they had purchased about 53 acres, Justice Vijaysen Reddy said: “It is not in dispute that the vendor, Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society, did not have any registered sale deed in their favour executed by the original owner. The validation proceedings were held to be fraudulent in the inquiry report before the district collector.”

The claim of the society that it was delivered possession of 99 acres, the judge said, was “bogus and fraudulent as the land was under the custody of the government.” The judge directed the government to bring the Supreme Court order to the notice of the civil courts and writ courts where matters relating to land in question were being litigated.

Petitioner: State report on rain full of inaccuracies

The state government presented its status report on the steps initiated in the context of heavy rains in the state. It may be recalled that Dr. Cheruku Sudhakar had filed a public interest litigation complaining that the government had failed to take steps under the Disaster Management Act of 2005. When the matter came up on Monday, Chikkudu Prabhakar, counsel for the petitioner, said that the report was full of inaccuracies and would therefore argue on merits. The bench will take up the matter on Tuesday. 

State asked for reply on temple earnings

Justice C. Sumalatha of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the endowments commissioner to file his counter by August 7 on the government demanding a portion of earnings of temples. The court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the inaction of the department in exempting temples whose income was below Rs five lakh per annum from the purview of the Endowments Act. Nagilla Srinivas and founder trustees of some temples contended that the demand for a chunk of the earnings was contrary to the recommendations made in this regard and the government’s undertaking to the Supreme Court that it would grant exemption to temples whose annual income was below Rs five lakh.

HC notice on staff at new dist hospitals

Justice C. Sumalatha issued a notice in a writ petition questioning the action of the state government in increasing the bed strength in district hospitals without proportionately increasing the staff. The petitioner, Public Health and Medical Employees Union, complained that while the strength of the hospital was increased from 100 to 330 beds and cadre strength to 36 from 15, the hospital was being run without recruiting additional staff. It said contract labour was being employed at the rate of '15, 000 but the cadre employees are being paid only '10,000. The judge expressed doubts on the locus of the petitioner to fight the cause if it was not a recognised union.

HC stops TS from certifying RMPs

The Telangana High Court directed the state government not to issue certification of qualification for medical practice to RMPs and PMPs. Justice C. Sumalatha passed the interim order while entertaining a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association. The professional body questioned the power of the government to conduct such training courses or to certify and permit non-medical graduates for practicing allopathic medicine. It said the practice of running clinics, hospitals, first aid centres and PHCs by quacks was not only illegal but also unsafe. Basti dawakhanas and palle dawakhanas cannot be manned by quacks and such instructions are contrary to the law.