Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the impleadment of a landowner in pending land acquisition compensation proceedings, holding that the owner of the acquired property was a necessary party to the dispute over entitlement to compensation. The court was dealing with a civil revision petition filed by Puli Koteshwar against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon, allowing an application filed by Kotagiri Ramadevi for impleadment in a reference proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Unofficial respondent Ramadevi contended that she was the owner of 3.1 acres of land in Survey No. 515 of Ghanpur Station, which was acquired by the government. She alleged that compensation was wrongly awarded in favour of the claimants and pointed out that an earlier writ petition filed by her seeking correction of the award was allowed. She argued that she was entitled to receive the compensation and was a necessary and proper party to the reference proceedings. The revision petitioner opposed her impleadment, contending that he purchased a portion of the land under a simple sale deed, paid the entire sale consideration and took possession. He also relied on an affidavit and statement allegedly given by Ramadevi before the land acquisition officer authorising him to receive compensation on her behalf.
After examining the record, the court noted that Ramadevi continued to be the pattadar and occupant of the acquired land and that the alleged sale was not supported by a registered conveyance deed. The court observed that the affidavit and statement relied upon by the petitioner merely authorised him to act on behalf of the landowner during the award inquiry owing to her age and illness and did not confer any legal right to receive compensation in his own capacity. Observing that the landowner possessed a substantial interest in the subject matter of the reference, the court held that the trial court rightly directed her impleadment. Finding no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order, Justice Surepalli Nanda dismissed the revision petition and upheld the impleadment order.
Notices to be issued to encroachers
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court ordered notices to persons alleged to have encroached upon a public road between Tattiannaram and Hayathnagar, observing that they must be heard before any adverse action was considered. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Kandala Madhukar Reddy seeking removal of the alleged encroachments and restoration of the road for public use. The petitioner contended that a rainwater nala existed in the area several decades ago and that, after it dried up, a public road was laid.
According to the petitioner, portions of the road were subsequently encroached upon, obstructing public access. During the hearing, counsel for the revenue department referred to a survey report indicating that certain constructions were raised on a nala and submitted that the irrigation department should be impleaded to assist in identifying the boundaries and extent of the alleged encroachments. The court questioned the necessity of impleading the irrigation department, observing that if the nala ceased to exist and a road was subsequently laid the relevance of the department’s involvement required clarification.
The GHMC informed the court that notices were already issued to the occupants. The court then sought clarification on whether the occupants were paying property tax to the municipal authorities. Observing that collection of property tax could have a bearing on the matter and that the affected persons must be afforded the opportunity of hearing, the judge directed issuance of notices to the alleged encroachers and adjourned the matter.
HC not to intervene in loan fraud case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to intervene with State Bank of India’s decision to classify the loan account of BNR Infra & Leasing as fraudulent. The panel held that the challenge mounted nearly a decade later was barred by unexplained delay and that the surrounding material, including proceedings before the CBI and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, supported the fraud declaration.
The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ appeal filed against the order of a single judge who had dismissed the company’s challenge to the bank action declaring its loan account as fraud. The bank classified the loan account of the appellant as fraud in 2016 after allegedly discovering that documents furnished in support of mortgaged properties were forged and fabricated. It was contended that the bank failed to consider the proposals of the firm for a one-time settlement and instead proceeded with recovery measures and criminal proceedings.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that the appellant availed substantial credit facilities and defaulted in repayment. During proceedings under the Sarfaesi Act, the bank discovered fabricated title documents, forged revenue records and a fake land conversion certificate allegedly furnished for obtaining the loans. It was submitted that proceedings before the DRT culminated in a decree in favour of the bank and that criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI remained pending. The respondent contended that the fraud classification was made in accordance with the RBI directions prevailing in 2016 and that the challenge raised after several years was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
The panel observed that the surrounding facts and circumstances, particularly the proceedings before the CBI and the DRT, supported the classification of the account of the appellant as fraud. The court noted that the appellant approached the High Court only now and failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay. Holding that the fraud classification could not be unsettled in the exercise of writ jurisdiction after such an inordinate lapse of time, the panel found no ground to intervene in the order of the single judge. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Telangana HC Suspends Director of Prosecutions’ Seniority List, Reinstates Additional PP
Justice T. Sharat of the Telangana High Court suspended final seniority list at the Director of Prosecutions as well as the order reverting an additional public prosecutor (APP) grade-II. The judge prima facie held that the authority lacked jurisdiction to reopen settled service matters and disturb a promotion that had attained finality. The judge was hearing two writ petitions filed by G. Daniel Kumar, APP grade-II who contended that the seniority list was finalised several years ago and been acted upon for all service purposes and attained finality. Dr K. Lakshmi Narasimha, counsel for the petitioner, argued that despite the absence of any statutory provision conferring review powers or any appeal against the seniority list, the Director of Prosecutions reopened the settled seniority on the basis of belated representations. The petitioner in the other writ petition further challenged the consequential order reverting him from the post of APP grade-II to APP, contending that the reversion illegally nullified a valid promotion and unsettled accrued service rights. The court also took note that certain impugned orders were issued around 9 pm on a Saturday despite there being no apparent urgency. Prima facie finding that the impugned proceedings suffered lack of jurisdiction, arbitrariness and violation of settled principles governing service jurisprudence, the court suspended the impugned orders and all consequential proceedings in both writ petitions. The court directed that the petitioner shall continue as APP grade-II at his present place of posting without interference with his status, seniority or duties until further orders.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
