Delay in Viveka Murder Trial: HC Orders Notice to Accused

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to several accused in the prolonged criminal case in connection with the murder of former Andhra Pradesh minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice T. Vinod Kumar, was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Dr Suneetha Narreddy, daughter of the deceased, complaining about the inordinate delay in the trial. She pointed out that Article 21 called for a speedy trial. It was also pointed out that application for supply of documents to the accused by the CBI had been pending for over 15 months indicating a lackadaisical approach by the prosecution in dealing with trial. The incident occurred in the early hours of March 15, 2019 at the residence of the deceased in Pulivendula. The trial has not even commenced, she said. S. Goutham, counsel for the petitioner, informed the panel that the inordinate delay was not only contra to the verdict of apex court for effective disposal of criminal cases but also a poor reflection on the prosecution’s wrongdoings while keeping the victim’s family disheartened and disillusioned. The panel permitted personal notices to the array of accused in the case, including Lok Sabha member Y.S. Avinash Reddy.

Farmer's plea for pattas in Kandlakunta Regadi dismissed

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a grant of pattas to farmers for 164.2 acres of land in Kandlakunta Regadi, Amrabad mandal, Mahabubnagar district. The petitioners, belonging to SC, ST and BC communities, claimed entitlement to the land as compensation for their lands submerged under the Dindi project. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed a writ plea filed by Nenavath Jagan and 102 others, who claimed to be farmers cultivating the land under a 20-year lease granted in 1967 for Kumri cultivation. Despite repeated legal efforts over decades, the state government did not issue pattas, citing that the land was part of a reserve forest. The petitioners argued that their forefathers were allotted the land under a government order as part of a rehabilitation effort. Despite multiple court orders in their favour, they continued to face opposition from government authorities and third parties. In response, the government contended that the land belonged to the Amrabad reserve forest, making it ineligible for allotment under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Official reports stated that the land was leased for cultivation but never formally assigned. The judge held that forest land was a national asset and could not be diverted for private ownership under constitutional provisions. It was also stated that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to assign pattas for forest land and that the petitioners claim, based on prolonged possession, did not meet the 75-year requirement under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Scribe files plea against eatery near his house

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the inaction of GHMC and other authorities in addressing health concerns over the opening of a tiffin centre adjacent to a journalist’s residence. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by V. Vishwanath, a resident of Musheerabad, alleging that the authorities failed to act on his representation seeking to prevent functioning of a masala popcorn preparation unit and a tiffin centre beside his house. The petitioner contended that the pungent smoke and fumes from the food preparation centre were adversely affecting the health of his wife, who suffers from asthma and lung infections that are to severe weight loss. The petitioner alleged that the failure of authorities to regulate commercial food establishments in residential areas violates his rights under the Constitution, as well as the GHMC Act. The petitioner is seeking a direction to GHMC and other authorities to take immediate steps to prevent the opening of the tiffin centre.

Writ for burial ground in Yapral dismissed

The Telangana High Court ruled that developmental works on a graveyard in Yapral village cannot be undertaken without proper authorisation. Justice K. Lakshman was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kaundinya Gouda Sangam. The petitioner sought construction of a compound wall and removal of garbage from the site. The judge found that the land in question was designated as government property. Official records, including a 2015 report, confirmed that the 10 gunta parcel of land was identified as a burial ground for the Goud community. However, the court observed that the land was neither allotted to the petitioner nor handed over to the municipal authority. Justice Lakshman held that the petitioner should have first approached the revenue authorities to obtain formal possession of the land before requesting municipal intervention for development. Stating that municipal authorities could not be expected to act without proper authorisation, the court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach revenue authorities for handover of the land, paving the way for future action.

HC takes up govt employee’s plea seeking promotion

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the denial of promotion to an assistant section officer due to a pending FIR. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by G. Praveen Kumar, presently working as additional private secretary in the office of the speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly, seeking promotion to the post of section officer. The petitioner contended that despite there being no valid departmental or criminal proceedings against him, the GAD and MA&UD department had failed to consider his promotion while promoting several of his juniors in the panel year 2023–24. The petitioner alleged that his name was arbitrarily withheld citing the FIR against him by the ACB, CIU, Hyderabad in June 2022, even though no charge sheet has been filed against him. The counsel for the petitioner argued that mere pendency of an FIR cannot be a ground to deny promotion, as per settled judicial precedents. The petitioner is seeking directions to the state authorities to grant him promotion effective from the date his juniors were elevated, along with all consequential benefits, including seniority.