Don't Give Cheques without Kukatpally MLA: HC Tells TG

The judgment was given while hearing a writ plea filed by Madhavaram Krishna Rao, an MLA from the Kukatpally Assembly constituency.

The petitioner alleged that the Kukatpally Revenue Divisional Officer and others, were involving the candidates who were defeated in the 2023 Assembly elections for the distribution of cheques on behalf of the government though it was the petitioner, an elected as MLA, who should have been invited for the programme as per G.O.Ms.Nos.18 and 25 issued in June and July 2016 respectively.

The petitioner challenged the actions of the respondents in disrespecting and disregarding him, the elected representative, who was otherwise conferred with the task and object in implementing welfare schemes for the weaker sections.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge directed the government pleader to get instructions and directed the state backward classes welfare department and others to not to distribute cheques without participation of the petitioner.

Court orders unfreezing of singer’s bank a/c

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court directed the authorities to unfreeze the bank account of Indian singer Jasleen Kaur Royal, which was freezed in relation to cancellation of a concert in Hyderabad.

The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the petitioner challenging the actions of the police authorities in freezing the bank account of the petitioner under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) following an FIR registered on November 6, at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad.

The petitioner argued that her account had been frozen arbitrarily, without any proper investigation or complaint. The petitioner further claimed the station house officer of the Cyberabad Crime Police Station directed IDBI Bank to freeze the account on the pretext of an investigation, without providing adequate justification.

The petitioner also alleged that freezing of her bank account violated her fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The Assistant Government Pleader defended the freezing of the account, stating that an investigation was underway and there were financial disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondent. The authorities claimed that the petitioner was absconding and noted that Rs 10 lakh, linked to the non-performance of the concert, had been transferred into her account.

The petitioner refuted the allegations, contending that she had no objection to the payment of Rs 10 lakh but argued that freezing the entire account was disproportionate, excessive, and a violation of her rights. The judge observed that while the authorities have the power to freeze accounts during investigations, such actions must not be arbitrary or exceed legal boundaries.

The judge also held that the freezing of the petitioner’s account lacked sufficient justification, was procedurally unfair, and violated established legal principles. The judge ordered the unfreezing of her bank account, which contained over Rs 2.5 crores, while imposing a lien of Rs 10 lakh to protect the interest of both parties. The matter is posted for further adjudication.

State must pay compensation: HC

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court reiterated that authorities under Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act are obligated to pay the one-time compensation as specified in Schedule II to the affected family members. He also ruled that the petitioner cannot claim parity in an illegality and said the courts cannot perpetuate any illegality committed earlier by the authorities.

The judge was dealing with a plea seeking employment under the rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). The writ plea was filed by Darla Surya Lakshman Kumar contending that land acquisition proceedings were initiated in relation to land situated in Khanman district.

The land, measuring 1 acre and 25 guntas, initially belonged to the petitioner’s late father Venugopal Raju. The land was acquired for the Bhadrachalam Thermal Power Project. The competent authority under Section 64 of the LARR Act concluded that the petitioner and his two brothers, as legal heirs, were entitled to compensation for the acquired land. The name of the petitioner was subsequently mutated in the revenue records as the rightful owner.

The petitioner argued that he qualified as an “affected family” under Section 3(C) of the LARR Act and was entitled to benefits under Section 31, including employment for one adult family member.

He claimed that his daughter, who attained majority in 2020 and qualified in civil engineering, should be considered eligible for employment as per Schedule II of the Act. He further contended that the denial of employment benefits violated the provisions of the LARR Act and amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory action by the authorities as few of the affected persons were provided with employment.

Government Pleader opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner was ineligible for employment benefits under Schedule II, as the land acquisition proceedings were initiated when the property was still in the name of the petitioner’s father. He also argued that the Government Orders relied on by the petitioner ceased to operate. The counsel highlighted that in similar cases, claims for employment of grandchildren of the original pattadar were rejected on the grounds that they do not qualify as members of the “affected family” under Section 3(c) of the LARR Act.

The judge observed that the petitioner and his brothers were not eligible for employment at the time of the land acquisition proceedings. While acknowledging the petitioner’s status as a member of an “affected family,” the judge clarified that he could only claim a one-time payment under Schedule II, as no family member qualified for employment. The judge concluded that the petitioner could not invoke the principles of equity to demand employment for his daughter, as doing so would perpetuate illegality.

It directed the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies while reiterating that the authorities were obligated to pay the one-time compensation as specified in Schedule II to the affected family members. The judge held that the petitioner could not seek parity in illegality and must explore other legal remedies, as equity cannot be extended to perpetuate a wrongful claim.

HC takes up case on contract dispute

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao will continue to hear an appeal pertaining to a commercial dispute between private parties revolving around the existence of a valid agreement.

The panel is hearing an appeal filed by Montecino Constructions Private Limited, challenging the decision of the trial court for dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for the recovery of approximately Rs 1.38 crore.

The case stems from a memorandum of understanding (MoU) pertaining to the acquisition of a solar power plant located in Maddimadugu, Kadiri, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh.

The appellant contended that it paid Rs 1 crore in advance to the Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited. However, the MoU was terminated due to alleged breaches by the respondent.

Despite issuing repeated demands, including a legal notice, the respondent failed to refund the advance amount. The trial court dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a contractual relationship with the defendant.

The trial court noted that the MoU was executed between the respondent and India Land Group, with no privity of contract involving the plaintiff.

Additionally, the plaintiff did not include India Land Group, a necessary party, in the suit, rendering the claim legally untenable. In its appeal, the appellant sought to overturn the trial court’s decision and demanded approximately Rs 1.86 crore, including interest.