Legal Briefs | Govt officers in Telangana face contempt heat in land acquisition case

HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court initiated contempt proceedings against senior government officials for failure to comply with court orders directing payment of enhanced compensation in a decade-old land acquisition case. The matter pertains to land acquired on September 19, 2002, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Dissatisfied with the initial compensation, petitioner M. Balakrishna Reddy sought a reference under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(Act). Senior civil judge, Miryalaguda, hadin March 2012 enhanced the compensation amount. The state appeal was dismissed in February 2022. Despite these rulings, the compensation remained unpaid, compelling the petitioner to file a writ petition and subsequently initiate contempt proceedings. During the hearing, Chennaiah, land acquisition officer-cum-revenue divisional officer, Miryalaguda, personally appeared before the court and contended that while he was tasked with implementing the award, the release of funds was the responsibility of K.S. Sreenivasa Rao, then principal secretary of the transport, roads, and buildings department. The said respondent, in turn, pointed to Ramakrishna Rao, secretary of the finance and planning department, as the authority responsible for sanctioning funds. Expressing dissatisfaction with the blame-shifting by officials, the judge remarked that their conduct demonstrated a lack of commitment to judicial compliance. The judge issued a Form-1 notice to both Sreenivasa Rao and Ramakrishna Rao, directing them to appear before the court and provide an explanation for not releasing the funds. The judge posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.

84-year-old plea on police interference

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy ordered the station house officer (SHO) of Mulakalapally mandal police and other authorities not to interfere in a case where the police allegedly evicted the petitioner contrary to law. The petitioner, 84-year-old Madakam Rajamma, an agriculturist from Palavagu in Mulakalapally mandal, alleged that the authorities, in collusion with private parties, were attempting to dispossess and evict the petitioner from peaceful possession of her patta land. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities were repeatedly calling her, visiting her residence and asking her to visit the police station. The judge observed that there was a prima facie title in favour the petitioner and accordingly directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.

Olympic body polls: HC dismisses plea

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the order of the single judge, who declared that writs are not maintainable against Telangana Olympic Association (TOA) was it was not the instrumentality of the state and falls under Article 12 Constitution of India. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with an appeal filed by Telangana Squash Rackets Association (TSRA), affiliated to the TOA. The appellant filed the writ petition questioning the action of the association and its returning officer in not allowing two representatives of petitioner's association to participate in the June 9 elections and deleting names of its representatives from the electoral college proceedings. The petitioner contended that it aims at promoting sports, ethics in squash rackets, combat doping and foster moral and cultural education among the youth. It is the case of the petitioner that 34 associations were allowed to participate in the elections, with each having two representatives. However, the petitioner association was denied the privilege. Its claim is that exclusion from electoral college and lack of response from authorities to their representation is illegal. The petitioner pointed out that participation of its representatives in the TOA elections is essential for maintaining its affiliation. This affiliation is crucial for the racket association to conduct tournaments, select players, and promote the sport at national and international levels. The petitioner argued that their exclusion infringes the fundamental rights of numerous squash racket players from Telangana, which should not be permitted by the Court. The petitioner emphasized that the right to contest in elections is a fundamental right, which has been unlawfully infringed by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the association is registered under the 2001 Act and operates according to its provisions. Specifically, Section 23 of the Act mandates that any disputes between members and the society be resolved in an appropriate district court, in conjunction with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The single judge after examining the matter extensively ruled that the entity against which the grievance is made out should either be state of government or an instrumentality of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in the instant case the association is not the instrumentality of State. The single judge, however, left it to the petitioners to take recourse to remedies available under the law. The panel, after considering the matter at length, refused to interfere with the order of the single judge and accordingly dismissed the writ appeal.

HC rejects bail in narcotics case

Justice G. Radha Rani rejected the bail petition of two individuals arrested for allegedly transporting dry ganja. On August 27, 2023, the accused, Valmik Rupa Mohith Walmik and Bhattu Devarum Chavan Bhattu, were intercepted near Raipole while traveling in a car from Visakhapatnam to Nasik. Upon searching the vehicle, police recovered 60 kg ganja. Following their arrest, the accused were remanded to custody. The petitioners’ counsel argued that procedural violations had been committed during the search and seizure operations. Counsel also emphasised that the accused were the sole breadwinners of their families, had permanent residences, and owned fixed properties and sought bail for them. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, highlighting the large commercial quantity of ganja that was recovered, which is punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The prosecution contended that the seriousness of the offence outweighed the claims of the petitioners for leniency. The judge, after reviewing the case, noted that the procedural violations alleged by the defence under NDPS Act did not apply, as the search was conducted on a vehicle rather than a personal search. Given the significant quantity of contraband and the severity of the offence, the judge concluded that granting bail would not be appropriate and dismissed the bail petition.