Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Thursday questioned the state government whether or not its departments had been maintaining a structured mechanism to track and and take timely action on legal files and cases pending before the courts.Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh stated that states like Tripura were maintaining a mechanism to track the legal issues related to each department.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Gouse Meera Mohiuddin on Thursday expressed displeasure over the delay by government officials in filing counters in the cases and in filing appeals. The court observed that there seemed to be a lack of accountability on part of the officials and no proper mechanism to deal with legal-related issues.The bench made the observations when the prohibition and excise department filed a challenge to a June 2023 order, with a delay of over 500 days.“Suich delay raises serious concerns. If appeals are filed after such a long gap, when does the matter attain finality,” asked Chief Justice Singh. The bench observed that while the court often condones delays of up to 100 days in routine matters, it cannot continue doing so for prolonged lapses.HC Reserves Orders on Nagaram LandHyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Thursday reserved orders in the petitions that had alleged fraudulent transactions and mutations in land in Survey No.s 194 and 195 of Nagaram, and sought the appointment of an inquiry commission. It was alleged that some IAS and IPS officers had purchased around 28 acres of land.The court also reserved orders in the interim applications filed by the land purchasers who requested the vacation of its earlier orders. The court had earlier directed the Rangareddy collector to include the land in the prohibited list and directed the purchasers to not modify or alienate the land in any form.Justice K. Lakshman was hearing petitions regarding to alleged transactions in what was stated to be Bhoodan and government land in Survey No.s 181, 182, 194 and 195 of Nagaram.Senior counsel L. Ravichander, representing petitioner Birla Mallesh, argued that petitioner’s property related to 1.25 acres of the total land. When he was informed that it was in a different survey number, he started a search and “the worms started crawling from the Pandora’s box,” senior counsel said.Ravichander clarified that most of the land was stated to be government land and not Bhoodan land. He said that the petitioner chose to get into a battle without knowing the strength of the adversary. The petitioner’s grievance was restricted to the land belonging to his mother. Ravichander explained that since the petitioner had an interest in the land in question, he could not file a PIL and he could not be unsuited on the ground of locus.Dr J. Vijayalakshmi, counsel representing V. Ramulu, another petitioner, submitted that her client had 10.17 acres in Survey No. 194 and he was is in possession and revenue records were available. All of a sudden, without issuing notice or without receiving an SMS alert on the phone connected with the passbook, his name was removed from online revenue records, after the Bhu Bharati Act came into force.When the petitioner asked for data, and applied under the RTI Act for information on how the land on his name was mutated to other private parties, the authorities did not provide the documents. Moreover, people on the other side were IAS and IPS officers while the petitioner belonged to the ST community, it was stated.Hence, the petitioner requested the government to appoint the inquiry commission to probe how the land was mutated without informing him.Senior counsel B. Chandrasen Reddy, Sri Raghuram, T. Surya Satish and others appearing for the IAS and IPS officers and other land purchasers argued that the petitioners were deliberately making issue and pointed out that the Bhoodan Yagna Board itself had declared that the land in Survey No.s 194 and 195 was not Bhoodan land.HC grills TG on construction of villas near Golconda FortHyderabad:The Telangana High Court wanted the state government to clarify its role in granting permission for construction of private villas near Golconda fort. A bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy granted two weeks to the government to clarify its statutory role as competent authority under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act.The bench was dealing with a writ appeal filed by social activist Mohammed Azam Khan, aggrieved by order of single judge who allowed a writ plea filed by a realtor.Senior counsel L. Ravichander pointed out that role of the competent authority (state government) could not be reduced to ministerial function. He pointed out that the statute required it to carry out an independent function and not subject itself to command of the National Monuments Authority (NMA).Senior counsel also pointed out that the NMA order suffered multiple irregularities and illegalities. The permission granted for the villas was on an assessment by a person appointed by the beneficiary, contrary to the statue. Senior counsel contended that the no objection certificate (NOC) granted to the realtor was under challenge in a public interest litigation (PIL) which is pending adjudication.It was argued that the single judge erred in proceeding independently with the writ plea despite the pending PIL involving overlapping facts and legal issues. It was argued that the competent authority in its response in the writ plea flagged several issues while submitting a report to the NMA for consideration of the petitioner’s application. The state government changed its stance during final hearing of the writ plea and undertook to give an NOC to the writ petitioner as per the NMA recommendation.The panel inquired whether or not the government was merely acting as a postman and conveying the decision of the NMA without any power of its own in giving or refusing permission.The panel noted that although the state government issued permission on June 27, 2025, pursuant to the writ court’s directions, it had previously filed a response in June 2021 opposing the grant. No subsequent affidavit was filed before the writ court to clarify whether the concerns raised were later resolved.The panel, therefore, granted the government two weeks to file an affidavit addressing compliance with statutory preconditions. The panel posted the matter for hearing on August 26, along with the PIL.
Source link
