Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court is likely to hear on Tuesday a writ appeal by the management of the Sultan-Ul-Uloom group of educational institutions. On Monday, a special mention was made for the case to be taken up. The management had unsuccessfully challenged the power of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in refusing recognition for the long-established group of colleges on the ground that there were civil disputes regarding the title to the property in the possession of the college management. A single judge on Thursday upheld the actions of AICTE which led to the filing of the present appeals.
Compensation in Kistaram OCP case
The Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea in an ongoing dispute involving the enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the Kistaram Open Cast Project (OCP) at Cherukupally gram panchayat in Sathupalli mandal. The dispute involves the reduction of compensation from Rs 11.64 lakh to Rs 7.61 lakh, which the petitioners argued is arbitrary and in violation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act). Justice T. Vinod Kumar is hearing a writ plea filed by Mogili Nagesh and 167 other petitioners, who allege that the authorities failed to consider their representations and to provide necessary rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. The petitioners alleged that the compensation amount was consistently reduced under various pretexts, which they contend is unfair and detrimental. The petitioners also sought that the original compensation package of Rs 11.64 lakh or an equivalent rehabilitation package similar to other projects in Telangana be awarded. Counsel for the Singareni Collieries pointed out that nearly 60 of the 167 petitioners had already accepted the compensation offered.
HC lens on dormitory rights in rail stations
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of Telangana High Court will decide the legality of the actions of the senior divisional commercial manager of South Central Railway, Secunderabad, in terminating the licence of the licence holder with respect to dormitory and retiring rooms at Secunderabad Railway Station. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by K. Padmaja who is a licence holder of Renovation Operation Maintenance and Transfer (ROMT) of retiring rooms and dormitories in Secunderabad Railway Station. The petitioner challenged the actions of the respondent authority in terminating her licence despite earlier interim order passed by a single judge suspending another earlier notice cancelling the licence. The petitioner also alleged that the actions of the respondent authorities are contrary to the terms of the lease deed and thus, illegal and unsustainable in law. After hearing the parties, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and, meanwhile, not to take any steps until the end of this month.
HC dismisses writ on civil dispute
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea reiterating that civil disputes should be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and cannot be determined under writ jurisdiction. This came in response to a writ plea filed by Sri Yalamanchilli Suresh and others. The petitioners approached the court seeking a declaration against the tahsildar of Medchal-Malkajgiri district for registering sale deeds with respect to the land allegedly belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the authorities registered sale deed despite the same being executed by third parties in favour of outsiders without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioners further alleged that agricultural land were converted to non-agricultural land without following the due process of law. It was also the case of the petitioners that the proposal for the grant of layout approval with respect to the scheduled land by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority was unlawful and unconstitutional. After hearing both parties, the judge observed that the allegations raised by the petitioner were purely of civil nature and could not be settled through the writ jurisdiction of High Court.
