Hyderabad: The division bench of the Telangana High Court decided to deal with a domestic dispute between aged parents and their children in a humanistic manner, advocating the elimination of family disputes by promoting amicable settlement.
The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Tukaramji on Thursday took the decision while hearing a writ petition filed by T. Narender, questioning an order passed by the special tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007, based on which a gift deed made by the father to son was cancelled. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel Anand Kumar Thakur and respondent’s counsel Syed Yasar Mamoom, the court said that an endeavour should be made to settle the dispute amicably.
The bench directed the petitioner, his wife and the respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, to attend an interaction on March 16. The Chief Justice would help parties reach an amicable solution in his chambers.
HC questions authorities over revoking building permission
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court, hearing a writ plea assailing the action of municipal authorities in revoking building permission on the ground of non-disclosure of pending litigation, questioned the authority under which the permission was cancelled.
The petitioner, Shekariah, said due to interference from a third party, the petitioner filed an injunction suit against them. On coming to know of it, the building permit was revoked. Petitioner’s counsel said that municipal authorities are entitled to only verify whether there is prima facie title at the time of granting permission.
HC seeks counter from edu. officials over teacher transfers
The Telangana High Court on Thursday issued notice to the department of school education in a matter about the transfer of government teachers after bifurcation. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy directed the commissioner and director of higher education to file a detailed counter and adjourned the matter to April 25.
Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar, appearing on behalf of K. Ramesh and 68 petitioners, stated that spouses were being allocated to different regions. He also sought directions to the department of higher education to restore the seniority of petitioners. The senior counsel also pointed out that the transfers and allocation may go on till summer.
No relief to KMC students barred from exams due to low attendance
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court, hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by students of Kamineni Medical College over being disallowed from writing exams due to low attendance, refused to condone the attendance shortage.
The petitioners contended that their attendance was not properly calculated. The judge observed that when a similar writ petition was rejected in an earlier case, the petitioners had moved a writ appeal in which the High Court had directed the candidates to appear for the examination.
However, in the present batch of matters, Justice Lakshman pointed out, the authorities of the Kaloji Narayan Rao University of Health Sciences and the National Medical Commission referred to the regulations of graduate medical education. It was alleged that the respondent college had not maintained the biometric attendance and therefore, the attendance was improperly calculated.
The judge, referring to various orders by different High Courts, refused to grant an interim order permitting students to take the examination. He also rejected a plea for appointment of a commission headed by an IAS or IPS officer, or a judge.
Moinabad panchayat told not to dispossess land of petitioner
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the gram panchayat of Moinabad mandal not to dispossess a property measuring six acres and 30 guntas from a petitioner, petitioner Durga Devi. The gram panchayat had placed a board stating that the land was meant for ‘Telangana Kreeda Pranganam.’
Damodar Mundra, counsel for the petitioner, said that in an earlier round of litigation, there was a specific direction by the High Court to the government to not dispossess from the land. The latest action was not only illegal but also amounted to contempt of court, the counsel contended.
