Bandi Bageerath Withdraws Anticipatory Bail Petition

Hyderabad: The anticipatory bail petition filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Union minister and BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar, was withdrawn from the Telangana High Court following his arrest in the Pocso Act case registered at the Petbasheerabad police station. Bageerath’s counsel N. Naveen Kumar submitted a memo before the registry of the High Court seeking permission to withdraw the petition, stating that no further orders were required in the matter. Acting on the request, the petition was listed for withdrawal on Thursday.

The anticipatory bail plea had earlier come up for hearing last week and proceedings continued till late in the night. During the hearing, public prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao had placed before the court the statement recorded from the victim in connection with the case. After examining the material submitted by the prosecution, the court had declined to grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner. In the absence of any protective order from the High Court, the police had arrested Bageerath in connection with the case.

HC refused to stay the public auction for lease of temple land

The Telangana High Court has refused to stay the proposed public auction for lease of agricultural land belonging to the Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Temple situated at Donabanda of Hajipur mandal of Mancherial district, observing that there was no prima facie reason to stall the process initiated by the endowments department.

Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ petition filed by Polasa Srisailam, who claimed hereditary trusteeship and archakaship over the temple established by his family more than a century ago. The petitioner challenged the notification to auction cultivation rights over 15 acres of temple land spread across Survey No.s 221, 222 and 232 in Donabanda.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the temple land had remained under the family’s control for generations and that the petitioner inherited both trusteeship and archaka rights. It was contended that, in the absence of a formally appointed executive officer for the temple, the mandal in-charge and executive officer had no authority to conduct the auction. He submitted a proceeding issued by the endowment department in 2010 had recognized Srisailam’s rights in relation to the temple administration and land.

Opposing the plea, the government counsel for the endowments department submitted that the Section 43 certificate merely recorded existing particulars and did not confer hereditary ownership or tenancy rights over temple properties. The state argued that all temple properties vest with the deity and the institution, while an archaka functions as a servant of the deity and not as the owner of temple land. After hearing both sides, the High Court refused to stay the auction proceedings but permitted the petitioner to participate in the public auction as a bidder if he intended to continue cultivation of the land.