High Court Seeks State Clarification on Scheduled Villages

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday heard a PIL and directed the state to clarify the inclusion of Scheduled Area villages within the reconstituted Kothagudem municipality. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a PIL filed by J. Shivaram Prasad, challenging an amendment to the Telangana Municipalities Act and the subsequent constitution of the Kothagudem Municipal Corporation. The petitioner contended that several villages, including Laxmidevipalli, Mangapetta, and Narsimhasagaram, which were designated as Scheduled Areas under a notification by the erstwhile government, have been included in the amended notification issued on April 15, 2025. It was argued that if the villages fall within the reconstituted municipal limits, such inclusion would be legally impermissible and would violate statutory protections, specifically the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act. The panel required the additional advocate general to clarify whether the specific villages notified as Scheduled Areas in 1950 actually form part of the territorial limits of the reconstituted Kothagudem municipality. The court emphasised that the inclusion of such areas must be scrutinised against the special constitutional and statutory status accorded to Scheduled Tribes. After hearing the preliminary submissions, the panel directed the state to submit its clarification and adjourned the matter for further hearing.

HC clears cinema theatre licence transfer

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court held that a succession certificate is not mandatory for the transfer of a cinema theatre licence, and that a Family Member Declaration Certificate issued by the tahsildar is sufficient. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Saikrishna Cinema Theatre in Karimnagar, challenging the action of the authorities in refusing to grant the transfer the cinema licence after the demise of the original licence holder. The petitioner contended that there is no statutory provision mandating the production of a succession certificate for transfer of a cinema licence and that the authorities are acting mechanically and unreasonably by insisting on such a certificate. It was further contended that the issue ought to have been dealt with by the competent authority or, if required, by the district court, instead of being stalled on hyper-technical grounds. Allowing the writ petition, the judge directed the authorities to process the transfer of the cinema licence in favour of the petitioner theatre. The court categorically observed that insistence on a succession certificate is unwarranted and held that a Family Member Declaration Certificate or other proof establishing succession within the family is sufficient for the purpose of licence transfer.

HC: Civil Courts can hear Agency Area row

The Telangana High Court ruled that civil courts are competent to entertain disputes relating to registered societies functioning in agency areas and set aside a contrary view taken by a District Court. Justice K. Sujana allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Naijo Sebastian, challenging an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, which returned the original petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had taken the view that Civil Courts could not adjudicate matters arising in agency areas and that the provisions of the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001, were inapplicable. Rejecting this reasoning, the judge observed that there was no express statutory bar under the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001, preventing Civil Courts from exercising jurisdiction over disputes involving societies situated in agency areas. The Court relied on its earlier judgments, which categorically upheld the jurisdiction of District Courts in similar circumstances. Justice Sujana noted that the assumption of the trial court that any decree passed by a Civil Court in such matters would be null and void was contrary to settled legal position. The judge accordingly directed the trial court to receive, register, and number the petition in accordance with law.