HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court faulted the state government for mechanically maintaining a rowdy sheet against a 45-year-old person for over a decade and directed the commissioner of police to close it. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Syed Hameed Shah, a resident of Syednagar, First Lancer. He complained that the Banjara Hills police had opened the rowdy sheet in 2007 for two cases from both of which he was acquitted. He complained that police were not closing the rowdy sheet despite several representations. They were calling him to the police station frequently and making him sit for hours, which is illegal. The authorities stated that the petitioner was creating a nuisance to the public. The judge observed that no case to that effect has been registered against the petitioner. The judge remarked, “Though the respondents/police claim that out of fear nobody is coming forward to lodge a complaint against the petitioner for his indulging in/ creating nuisance with the general public, in absence of any such details being placed on record, the statement of the respondents cannot be accepted as a valid basis or reason for the continuance of the rowdy sheet.” The judge pointed out that the plea of the government was at best “a self-serving statement”. He pointed out the apparent contradiction since the petitioner claimed that he was working as a driver outside the country, and it was the case of the police that he was (OV) ‘out of view’. The judge wondered how for a decade a person could be out of view and at the same time be causing nuisance. The judge pointed out “The counter affidavit filed by the respondent is bereft of any details of the subsequent incidents involving the petitioner in creating nuisance or activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area, except making reference to the two criminal cases registered earlier.” The judge made it clear that if the petitioner involves in further crimes, this will not preclude the respondents from opening a fresh rowdy sheet against him as per law.
Plea for special package payment dismissed
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court dismissed a plea for a special package payment, filed by Suresh Chandra Bhuyan, a nominal muster roll NMR plumber with the Housing Board. The petitioner stated that the government had failed to fulfill their commitment to provide a special package upon his retrenchment, resulting in a total balance of approximately Rs 12 lakh plus interest. The Housing Board countered said the special package had been, and the petitioner was trying to take advantage of a typographical error. After considering the arguments and taking note of the petitioner's significant delay in approaching the court, Justice Nanda concluded that the writ petition lacked merit. No costs were awarded in relation to the case.
Govt told to return unused land gifted for a PHC
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the state government to return land donated for a primary healthcare centre (PHC) considering that it was not used. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by B. Prabhavathama, who donated land for the construction of the PHC. The petitioner contended that the land was not utilised for that purpose. Despite several requests, the authorities did not return the land. The petitioner's husband fell ill and required expensive medical treatment and the petitioner said she herself was in constant need of medical assistance. The petitioner argued that the land should be reverted back to them according to the conditions stated in the gift deed and under the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents stated that the land was recorded in favour of the PHC and there was no provision in the gift deed for the land to be returned if not used for the intended purpose. The authorities argued that once the land was donated to the government, they had the freedom to use it for any other purpose. Justice Nanda observed that in similar situations, the land was returned to the donors. The judge directed the land to be returned to the petitioner as the purpose of the donation was not fulfilled.
Widow seeks repossession of land seized by her children
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday ordered notice to the children of a septuagenarian mother seeking repossession of her house and payment of maintenance. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by one Dogiparti Jayamma challenging the order of the district collector and magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 as illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority did not grant possession of the property owned by her husband. She argued that the maintenance granted was insufficient and insisted on restoring the possession of the property from her children from where she was dispossessed. The judge ordered notices to the petitioner’s children and directed them to file their reply.
Police asked to apologise to court for contempt
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Friday directed the police to submit an apology letter to the court. The judge was dealing with a contempt petition filed by Sayeed Ameen Uddin complaining of wilful disobedience of the orders of the court in not providing police protection. On an earlier occasion, the judge directed the appearance of A. Raju Varma, Charla sub-inspector, for violating orders. Ameen Uddin approached the court seeking police protection. The police official not only did not consider the representation, he along with his staff visited an agricultural land claimed by the petitioner and asked the petitioner to show the boundary stones of the disputed land. When the petitioner failed to do so, the SI addressed a letter to the Charla tahsildar requesting a surveyor to fix the boundaries of the disputed land. The judge pointed out that during the pendency of the suit and subsistence of the injunction order, the SI did not have powers to address a letter to the tahsildar. The same was in violation of court orders. On Friday, considering the contentions of the SI, the judge directed him to submit an apology letter to the court by the next date of hearing. The judge will again hear the matter after two weeks.
