HC Can’t Take Up Land Title Cases Under Article 226

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court ruled that the rights and title of the parties over the subject property cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of a land dispute involving the management of Suryalaxmi Degree College, two advocates, and the government concerning approximately 14 acres of land at Narayanpet.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a writ plea filed by Venkat Ramulu and Nagu Rao Namaji, both advocates from Narayanpet, questioning the action of the education department authorities in not resuming the said land and handing it over to the principal of Narayanpet Junior College as illegal.

According to the petitioners, the management of Suryalaxmi Degree College and others obtained a fraudulent decree from the courts and illegally occupied about 14 acres of land and made illegal construction. Prior to 1970 a Government High School was existing in Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar district and some well-wishers and elders of the area wanted a Government Junior College and made requests to the Government.

The authorities asked them to form a society and donate land and money to convert the High School into a Junior College. The elders of Narayanpet formed a society by the name, of Vidya Vardhak Samithi, Government Junior College, Narayanpet and purchased 14 acres 29 guntas of land in Survey No.461 at Pallabuzurg in Narayanpet through a registered sale deed, in the name of the Government Junior College, Narayanpet from its lawful owner and possessor Raghunath Rao Antooto get sanction for the Government Junior College at Narayanpet.

It is this land that is the subject matter of the present litigation. It is further stated that the management of degree college for which the then MLA Chittem Narsi Reddy is secretary, attempted to make constructions over the part of the land which belongs to Government Junior College, Narayanpet. Chaitanya Bharati Educational Society also applied for permission to run a private degree college in the name of Chittem Narsireddy alias Narsimha Reddy, as a patron of that society and it was running in a private premises.

On a detailed hearing of various claims in the matter, the bench speaking through Justice Sreenivas Rao pointed out that the records show that that possession of the land was handed over from Ram Mohan Reddy, the correspondent of Surya Laxmi Degree College, Narayanpet, to principal of Sri Chittem Narsi Reddy Memorial Govt. Degree College on July 19, 2018 and the Tahsildar, Narayanpet, on September 18, 2021 has carried out the changes in the revenue records i.e., renaming the land instead of Surya Laxmi Degree College, Narayanpet to Sri Chittem Narsi Reddy Memorial Government Degree College.

Justice Sreenivas Rao also pointed out the name of Sri Chittem Narsi Reddy Memorial Government Degree College, Narayanpet was recorded in the revenue records except in Dharani records, which is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.

He also said that out of 14 acres 29 guntas, the government authorities have already taken possession in respect of 8 acres 13 guntas in July 2018. However, the PIL did not find favour in questions of fact in the manner which reiterated its willingness to adjudicate questions of title in the writ petition.

Court stays action against mother

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court stayed criminal proceedings against a mother, who was accused of unlawfully taking away the custody of her son from the father.

The judge made an interim order in a petition filed by Dr. B. Priyanka.

The prosecution argued that the petitioner violated the custody order granted by the Family Court and unlawfully took away the custody of the minor child from the father.

The counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner is the biological mother of the minor child and she has acted in the interest of her child out of her maternal instincts. It was further contended that the remedy available to the de facto complainant for violation of custody order is to approach the Family Court. However, instead of approaching the Family Court, the complainant has foisted the present complaint against the petitioner with all false allegations.

Y. Soma Srinath Reddy placing reliance on a judgement of the Bombay High Court argued that the effect of natural father taking away the child from custody of the mother in real sense amounts to taking a child from the lawful guardianship of the mother to the other lawful guardianship of the father.

Natural father of the minor child is also a lawful guardian along with the mother, and therefore, the father of the minor cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 361 of IPC so as to make him punishable under Section 363 of Criminal Procedure Code. Per contra, additional public prosecutor opposed the grant of stay.

Justice Sridevi after hearing both sides said, “It appears that the petitioner herein, who is the mother of the minor child, has taken the minor child along with her, which amounts to taking the child to another lawful guardianship of the mother.” The judge further said that the judgment relied by counsel for petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, the petitioner, who is the natural mother of the minor child, is also a lawful guardian, along with the father. The judge accordingly, stayed all further proceedings against the petitioner till February 13.