Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed civic authorities to comply with its earlier directions and file a status report in a writ plea highlighting the problem of non-availability of water. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Junkanti was dealing with a letter addressed to the court by P.R. Subas Chandran, a journalist, highlighting the water shortage and seeking a direction to the authorities to implement measures to conserve and regulate water use. The bench, in 2005, had directed the government to form an expert committee to examine the issue and suggest remedies. This was done and an action taken report was submitted in 2006. Senior counsel D. Prakash Reddy, as amicus curiae, had given a note detailing nine aspects with regard to water conservation including making rainwater harvesting and water recycling plants mandatory in new buildings and imposing a ban on the new beverage-making industries. Amicus had also mentioned the need to develop a satellite city, and a provision was needed for a watchdog committee. The bench had previously taken note of this and had given the government two weeks to file a comprehensive response. With this not being done, the bench granted three weeks to comply with the court directions, failing which an appropriate order would be passed against the respondents.
ORC by Revenue Dept Quashed:
Justice M.G Priyadarsini of the Telangana High Court on Monday allowed a civil revision petition challenging the grant of an occupational right certificate (ORC) to the legal representatives of the then inamdar. The revision petitioner argued that they had purchased open plots in Gutla Begumpet, Serilingam-pally, which the GHMC regularized as per the orders of urban land ceiling authority. Following this, the inamdar's legal representatives, the respondents, claimed that they had obtained ORC on the orders passed by the revenue divisional officer, Chevella, later affirmed by Rangareddy district joint collector. Senior counsel M. Surendra Rao appearing for the revision petitioner said there was no evidence to back the legal heirs’ claim; the officials had passed a cryptic order without giving notice to the purchasers. The judge observed that in the absence of evidence to show that the disputed land was inam land, as was being claimed, the proceedings of the revenue divisional officer and joint collector were bad in law. The orders passed by the joint collector spoke volumes about the fraud played in the case.
Inter-caste Couple Gets Police Cover:
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy issued directives to ensure the safety of an inter-caste couple who said they were facing threats due to their marriage. In a writ plea, the couple complained of third-degree torture by the Siddipet One Town station house officer. The couple had married on September 28 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Uppal, against the consent of their parents. The bride’s father filed a complaint and a case was registered. The petitioner complained that the SHO was frequently summoning them and threatening them with dire consequences. The court had earlier noted that the bride had stated on oath that she had faced no force to marry. The court observed that protection should be provided to the petitioners and that the police should not harass them. On Monday, the petitioners complained that the earlier order was not given effect. The judge directed the police to provide necessary protection.
