Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court directed the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (Nalsar) to withhold a seat in five five-year degree courses (BA-LLB). The panel comprising Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy and Justice Lakshminarayana Alisetty is dealing with a writ plea filed by M. Karthik, a resident of Tirupati. It is the case of the petitioner that he scored All India Rank 871 and Nalsar failed to consider his domicile status thereby proceeded to insert his candidature at Serial No. 78 of Provisional Fifth List CLAT 2024 UG. The petitioner contended that such an action of the respondents is contrary to Section 95 of The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014 which provides for, “Equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students. In order to ensure equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students in the successor states, the existing admission quotas in all government or private, aided or unaided, institutions of higher, technical, and medical education in so far as it is provided under Article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue as such for a period of 10 years during which the existing common admission process shall continue.” The panel after considering the arguments directed Nalsar to hold a seat in the BA-LLB course and posted the matter after vacation. The panel also directed the respondent authorities to file their counters.
No interim orders on Gandhamguda lands
Justice J. Anil Kumar sitting in a vacation court refused to grant any interim orders in a writ plea challenging notice issued by District Collector, Rangareddy, with regard to lands in Sy No. 51 of Gandhamguda village Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy district. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Sabia Sultana and 13 others. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Collector issued notice on May 18 at the instance of Mohammed Shareef in respect of the alleged succession to the land admeasuring 9.36 acres at Gandhamguda village without appreciating the decision of the Special Tribunal and the High Court. The petitioner alleged that the authorities proceeded to pass final orders without affording any proper opportunity for a personal hearing and acted in haste to demolish the fencing. Petitioners also moved a lunch motion with regard to alleged illegal demolition which took place on May 29. The petitioner contended that the High Court, in an earlier writ petition, directed District Collector to denotify the land taking into consideration the order passed by the Special Tribunal, Rangareddy district, which is stated to be attained finality, and thereafter, the registering authority i.e., tahsildar, was directed to entertain, register and release the sale deeds that may be executed and presented by the petitioners or their power of attorney holder subject to the compliance of provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Vedula Venkatramana argued that such action of the authorities is without jurisdiction or any authority of law. On the other hand, the government pleader objected to the said contentions and argued that the title over the said lands have to be adjudicated. The judge however refused to grant any interim order and posted the matter after vacation.
