HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court closed a writ petition seeking the implementation of guidelines for the welfare of acid attack victims in view of the guidelines issued in this regard by the Supreme Court.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was
dealing with a writ plea filed by Sanober Ullah Khan. The petitioner sought
a direction from the High Court to take necessary action in controlling
further acid attacks and also in taking care of the victims while
implementing the guidelines of the scheme for the welfare of the acid attack
victims.
The bench noted that apex court had issued certain directions with regard to
treatment and payment of compensation to acid attack victims, following with
the Central government had issued certain guidelines to be followed by all
the Union Territories and states, which inter alia provide that no acid
attack victim will be denied treatment by any hospital — public or private
under any pretext.
The apex court’s directions also mandate that any hospital violating this
shall be dealt with sternly, full and free treatment to be provided to the
victims, minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakhs must be provided to the victim under the victim compensation scheme,
among others.
The Central government in November 2016 had also ordered all states and UTs
to ensure the implementation of the Central Govt Victim Compensation Funds
(CGVCS) Scheme to help women victims from various crimes committed against
them including rape, acid attacks, human trafficking among others.
The aforesaid order also directs the payment of an additional financial
assistance to the tune of Rs 1 lakh over and above provided under the CGVCS.
The additional amount has been directed to be provided from the Prime
Minister National Relief Fund. The bench taking note of it, closed the writ
petition by directing to adhere to the directions issued by the Central
government.
HC refuses relief of residence to army officer’s wife
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to come to the aid of
the wife of army personnel seeking to reside in a quarters in the backdrop
of a marital dispute. The unsuccessful appellant had field a writ petition
questioning the orders of the Station Commander in seeking to evict her from Roberts Road, Secunderabad.
The house was allotted to her husband, an Inservice officer. At the
relevant point in time, the army officer was posted at the Udhampur Field
Area and was entitled to a family accommodation in a non-field area.
Subsequently, on transfer, he was thus required to vacate the premises in
Hyderabad. However, his wife who is engaged in a marital dispute with him
contended that she was entitled to shared residence and therefore had a
right to continue in the allotted quarters.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar
ruled that accommodation to an army officer can be availed only up until
serving in a field area and not after that.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe said there is no statutory
right available to retain the accommodation and that she cannot
unauthorisedly continue to be staying there.
The bench directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking stating that the
petitioner will peacefully vacate the premises by January 15. Accordingly,
the bench dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to vacate the
quarters by said date. The bench also made it clear that if the appellant
refuses to do so, respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance
with law.
HC quashes Lok Adalat’s award
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court quashed an award of Lok
Adalat, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority in Hyderabad on the ground
that the award had been obtained by playing fraud.
The writ petition was filed by B. Lavanya and two others. They had earlier
filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition and separate
possession of the subject property. The suit was, however, contested by a
branch of the family stating that their father died testate, bequeathing the
subject land to him under the will made on August 1, 1982, and he had
executed settlement deeds in favour of his sons, on the death of the sibling
who contested the suit his window and children were impleaded in the suit.
Members of the family filed the present suit seeking partition and moved the
Lok Adalat for a compromise decree and got registered the award before the sub-registrar, Doodbowli, Hyderabad (respondent No.6) and got their names mutated in the revenue records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC. It is contended that though members of the present suit were parties to the earlier suit they were not made parties to the partition suit.
Thereafter, they collusively got recorded the award before the Lok Adalat in
the guise of compromise and divided the subject property among themselves.
The bench of Justice Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji rejected the plea of
the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable. The present writ
petition is perfectly maintainable, the bench said.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Tukaramji said fraud and justice never dwell
together. “Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the
other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. Further, the
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud, and delving into the facts of the
case the bench found a collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the
rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction
void ab initio.”
Fraud and deception are synonymous, filing a suit as if there was no dispute
or the contested fact has been settled and acting upon is clearly a dubious
act, essentially when the unresolved issue of the intestate or testate death
of the sibling is pending in the suit filed by the petitioner. The bench
found that the compromise was actuated by fraud; it set aside the award and
the entries made by the sub-registrar. The court also required the private
respondents to pay Rs 20,000 each as costs to each of the petitioners.
Follow the law, HC tells the R&B officials
Justice T. Vinod Kumar directed the executive engineer, roads and buildings
department, to follow procedure established by law to acquire lands at
Miyapur village. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Pathri
Surya Bai.
The petitioner alleged that authorities are attempting to acquire land in
part of survey no 119 and 166 situated at Miyapur for the purpose of
widening the road from 80 feet to 100 feet and contended that such action
without issuing any notice is illegal and violative of principles of natural
justice.
On the other hand, the respondent authorities contended that they are not
intending to widen the road and it was the petitioner who was trying to
encroach the road by laying temporary huts.
The judge after perusing the records reiterated that the authorities must
follow the due process of law even if they are willing to widen the road or
to remove encroachers and accordingly closed the writ petition.
