Police Body’s Ownership of Land Can’t Be Decided in Writ Proceedings: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court declared that the factual aspect of whether the State Police Housing Corporation is in possession of land at Asmangadh in Gaddiannaram cannot be decided by the High Court in writ proceedings. The panel was dealing with a writ appeal filed by the state government challenging an order of a single judge, who allowed a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of Afsar Sultana claiming that she had purchased the prime land. The petitioner had made a declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and parts of the land was declared as being in excess. Before the possession of the land was taken by the authorities, the ceiling Act was repealed. While the private parties were seeking regularisation, the government proceeded to treat it as its land, and the Police Housing Corporation (PHC) constructed a compound wall across about five acres.Drawing legal interference, a single judge pointed out that since the possession was not actually taken and the PHC had no right to enter the land and the land shall be restored to petitioners even if it is in the possession of the PHC and the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession. In the appeal, the Advocate-General pointed out that when the government was in possession of the property, the question of consideration of the regularisation under the GO did not arise and the competent authority had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. When the disputed question of facts of possession and title over the property were involved, the single judge ought to have delegated the petitioners to approach the competent civil court to establish their rights over the property, he contended. Partly allowing the state appeal, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe said the single judge ought not to have dealt with the issue with regard to possession and ought not to have proceeded to record the finding with regard to possession. Even otherwise, the issue whether the land was in possession of the writ petitioners, Respondents No. 1 to 3, or the Andhra Pradesh State Police Housing Corporation Limited was a disputed question of fact, which could not be adjudicated in a writ petition.

Union govt acquiring firing range land challenged

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea challenging the actions of the Union of India and others in not returning the land acquired by the government in 2017 for the construction of an indoor firing range for the Telangana Police Academy. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Uttam Chand Jain and others, seeking return of theirunused land at Survey No. 22, Katedan, Rajendranagar mandal in Rangareddy district. The petitioners contended that the land remained unused for over five years and was thus liable to be returned by virtue of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). The petitioners argued that only compound wall was constructed, serving solely as protection against encroachment and this does not constitute ‘utilisation’ of the land for the intended purpose. Counsel for the petitioners emphasised that two acres and 10 guntas of the land remained unutilised, while the rest has been partially developed. According to the petitioners, the land acquisition was intended for the indoor firing range, which remained unconstructed. The government pleader, appearing for the respondent authorities, requested two weeksto file an additional response, providing further details on the utilization status of the land.

Ascertain facts about release of four Rohingya Muslims, state govt urged

Justice J. Sridevi of the Telangana High Court required the state government to ascertain various factors relating to the release of four Rohingya Muslims apprehended and under detention for entering the country illegally. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Mohd Omer and two others. According to the petitioners, they were apprehended in July when they were travelling from Kolkata to Hyderabad in the hope of better employment. The petitioners claimed to be originally from Myanmar but had crossed the Bangladesh borders into India in the hope of better employment opportunities. They said that confession statements were recorded in Hindi, a language they were not familiar with. Senior counsel V. Raghunath pointed out that India being a signatory to various international human rights conventions was bound to rehabilitate such refugees and not persecute them. Justice Sridevi repeatedly asked the government and counsel representing the petitioner as to where the petitioners would be if released from custody. Raghunath informed the court that they have family members, who would execute bail bonds, if necessary. The judge posted the matter for further instructions in the matter on November 11.

Child care centre challenges non-renewal of licence

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of the chairperson of child welfare committee of Bhongir district, in not renewing the licence of Nireekhsana Gospel Mission and thereby relocating children housed by them. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the mission, alleging that the authority without considering its representation that was submitted in September for renewal of licence, proceeded to cancel its licence. The petitioner alleged that the children were shifted from the premises of the petitioner to government’s ‘safe houses’ over 30 to 40 km away. The petitioner alleged that it came to know from a newspaper article that a girl, who was removed from its care, had become a sexual assault victim. Citing such incidents, the petitioner sought a direction from the judge to the respondent to reconsider the renewal of their licence and thereby place the children back into the safe space of the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the judge directed the counsel for respondents to seek instructions in the matter and posted it for further adjudication.