Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered status quo with regard to custody of a child in a writ appeal challenging the order of the single judge. The single judge while hearing a batch of writ petitions had declared the actions of the women development and child welfare department and others in forcefully taking away custody of minor children from the adoptive parents as illegal. The HC panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, were dealing with a writ appeal filed by the directorate of women development and child welfare department aggrieved by the order of the single judge in a batch of writ petitions. The writ appellant contended that the respondents, who are the adoptive parents of a minor girl, are not entitled to her custody as they have not followed the procedures prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations, 2022. The panel, after hearing the additional advocate general and the counsel for the respondents, passed a status quo order with regard to the custody of the child with the appellant. Meanwhile, the panel directed the appellant to process the application of the respondent seeking custody of the child expeditiously preferably within two months. The matter was posted for further hearing.
HC refuses to enlarge on bail white-collar crimes accused
Justice J. Sridevi of the Telangana High Court refused to enlarge on bail Vansh Kumar Jangid, who, with his wife, is alleged to have committed various white collar offences. It is further alleged that the modus operandi of the petitioner and his wife was to threaten people with legal consequences if they did not pay up certain amounts. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and the principal accused would open false accounts and swindle money. The petitioner contended that he had no financial gains from the transactions and that the beneficiary accused was already enlarged on bail. The public prosecutor opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner had earlier escaped from custody while being brought on a PT warrant to Hyderabad. The petitioner’s version, however, was that in a crowded railway station he had lost touch with the police and had surrendered himself in Delhi, when the court found that the remand report was incomplete, the judge adjourned the matter.
Suman TV anchor draws HC flak
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court was highly critical of the manner in which anchor Roshan of Suman TV was making posts and turning around playing the victim card. The judge was dealing with a specially mentioned petition filed by G.S. Vasa Reddy complaining against the Jubilee Hills police for not acting upon a complaint lodged by him against Girish Daramoni, a YouTuber. According to the petitioner he had interviewed a female ‘aghori’, which had 1.6 million hits. According to the petitioner, the respondent uploaded a video with demeaning content in which he made disparaging remarks targeting the petitioner. It is also alleged that he had incited viewers against Suman TV. According to the petitioner, the respondent was instigating viewers against the petitioner and making hate speeches and the police were not taking any action. The judge directed the petitioners to approach the police with a representation on the basis of which the police would consider the case.
Petition seeking return of unused portion of land dismissed
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the return of an unutilised portion of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Jupalli Andalu, who contended that the disputed land admeasuring 30 guntas in Survey No. 33/E located in Datarpalli village, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet district, was part of a larger acquisition in which only one acre and 8 guntas were utilised. The petitioner claimed that her late husband was cultivating the 30 guntas not used by the government and sought its return as per the representation she had made last year. The petitioner argued that, under Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (LARR Act), unutilised land should be returned to its original owners. The respondent authorities contended that the acquisition process began under the Act of 1894, which lacks provisions for returning unutilised land. The respondents contended that Section 101 of the LARR Act does not apply. Citing the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment in ‘Arvind Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra,’ the judge emphasised that Section 101 of LARR Act cannot be retroactively applied to land acquired under the old Act. The division bench of the Bombay High Court clarified that Section 101 of the old Act is limited to acquisitions under the LARR Act. The judge also noted that a compensation for the land, approximately `5 lakh, had already been paid to the petitioner, and physical possession was taken following the acquisition award. Thus, Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, which deals with the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land was not taken or compensation was not paid. In view of these findings, the judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the unutilised land could not be returned to the petitioner under the old Act.
