Telangana Legal Briefs | Man gets relief in case under senior citizens Act
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of eviction passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bajrang Agarwal, challenging the eviction order passed by the Hyderabad collector. The petitioner said that the impugned order was illegally passed without affording him an opportunity of a hearing and the same was without jurisdiction. He contended that the Collector ought not to have entertained a petition filed by the mother in view of the fact that the property was gifted to her eldest son. Senior counsel appearing for the mother argued that even though the property was gifted, her interest in the said property remained and could not be taken away merely by a gift deed. He argued that the mother was constrained to approach the collector because of constant harassment by her younger son. The panel speaking through Justice Sreenivas Rao observed that as the appellant did not submit any reply to a showcause notice issued by the Collector. “One opportunity should be given to the appellant to submit explanation along with documents, if any, to the show-cause notice”. The panel thereafter directed the collector to pass orders afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant and mother and eldest son including a personal hearing in accordance with the law, within six weeks.
Land compensation plea spiked
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging the land acquisition authorities for allegedly failing to release compensation of around Rs 7.36 lakh for 478.528 square metres of land acquired under the National Highways Act. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kota Reddy, who contended that the land, located in Survey No. 139 at Mandamarri village and mandal, was acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, without paying compensation. The government pleader argued that the matter was under dispute and fell within the purview of the AP Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act. It was submitted that the case had been referred to the Additional Agent to the Government, who functions as a quasi-judicial authority in such matters. Furthermore, the compensation claim had been forwarded to the competent civil court under Section 3(h) of the National Highway Act, rendering the petitioner’s direct claim invalid until the dispute was resolved. The petitioner contended that the delay in payment was unjust, as the award had already been determined, and no interim relief had been provided. While dismissing the writ plea, the judge directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority, stating that the writ was not maintainable since the dispute was still pending before the Additional Agent to the Government.
Plea on encroachment dismissed
Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging the inaction of the Manikonda municipal commissioner in an alleged encroachment and illegal construction on a mortgaged property. The writ plea filed by Asthana Agri Genetics Private Limited alleged that unofficial respondents encroached upon 1,000 square yards of land within Plot No. 18, measuring 2,320 square yards, located in Neknampur village, Gandipet mandal, Rangareddy district. The petitioner claimed that building permission was unlawfully obtained and the municipal authority failed to act on their representation. The petitioner also highlighted that the property in question was mortgaged to the State Bank of India. The judge noted that the petitioner had remedies available in civil court to resolve the matter and dismissed the plea while granting liberty to file fresh representation to the respondents.
Conviction in graft case upheld
Justice K Surender of the Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a senior assistant, working at the office of the MRO Balanagar, in a trap case. The judge was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Krishnaiah who along with another was tried for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. According to the prosecution, the father of the complainant had purchased a plot of 105 square-yards at Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally and wanted to obtain permission for the construction of a house from the municipality. For applying for a bank loan, a copy of the sale deed, link documents and certificate from the MRO was required as the land fells under ‘gramakantam’. The accused according to the prosecution, insisted on a bribe of `8,000 and a trap case was laid. According to the prosecution the officer had not handed over the certificate to P.W.1, until the bribe amount was promised to be given. The relevant file was seized from the possession of A1. Presumption arose under Section 20 of the Act and the burden shifted to A1 to discharge his burden. He also pointed out that there is no reason for P.W.1 to take A2 on his motorcycle to a distance and then hand over the bribe amount unless it was directed. Justice Surender pointed out that the demand aspect was proved by the prosecution. He said that the prosecution had proved its case, the incident was of 2004 and nearly 20 years passed by, the appellant is now aged more than 70 years, as such, this court deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one year under both counts.
