KTR Election Safe as High Court Dismisses Petitions Over Property Claims

 Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday dismissed two petitions challenging the election of BRS working president and Sircilla MLA K.T. Rama Rao, holding that an election could not be set aside on the basis of speculative or unsubstantiated allegations.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao rejected the petitions filed by Congress candidates K.K. Mahender Reddy and Lagisetty Srinivas, the BRS leader’s rivals in the 2023 Assembly elections. The petitioners had sought to declare Rama Rao election void, alleging that he had suppressed material facts in his nomination affidavit.

The petitioners contended that Rama Rao had failed to disclose details relating to immovable properties allegedly purchased by his son, including land at Venkatapur and Errabelli in Siddipet district. They questioned the source of funds used for the purchases and alleged that the transactions indicated corruption on Rama Rao’s part.

Rejecting the contentions, the court observed that merely because Rama Rao's son had purchased properties, it could not be presumed that the legislator was involved in corruption. It held that allegations of corruption must be supported by credible material and cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture.

The court noted that the petitioners had failed to place any substantive evidence linking Rama Rao to the alleged property transactions or establishing that he had deliberately concealed material information in his election affidavit.

Justice Rajeshwara Rao observed that election petitions could not be entertained on hypothetical allegations or general accusations unsupported by evidence. The court further held that an elected public representative could not be unseated merely on the ground that the petitioner suspected suppression of facts without proving that any non-disclosure constituted a corrupt practice had materially affected the election.

 MJ College Admissions Subject to Final Verdict on AICTE Norms: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday made it clear that admission into the Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology, run by the Sultan Ul Uloom Educational Society, for the 2026-27 academic year through the counselling process of TG Eapcet, would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition regarding compliance of norms prescribed by the AICTE.

The Bench asked the single judge court to finalise as early as possible the pending petition filed by the college challenging the AICTE`s non approval to participate in the counselling.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin fixed August 12 as the date for the single judge bench to hear the petition as the counselling process is scheduled to be finalised on August 14.

Till the single bench of the High Court issued the interim direction on June 18, the AICTE had not allowed the college to access or download the extension of approval (EoA) for the ongoing academic year, despite repeated representations by the college. The single judge also directed that the approval of EoA, counselling process and admissions would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition filed by the college.

Forty-five days after the single judge asked it to file its counter-affidavit, the ICTE has not done so nor has it filed for the interim stay orders to be vacated. However, on April 20, the AICTE filed its appeal, which the division bench heard on Tuesday.

The bench expressed serious concern over the AICTE delay in filing the counters before the single judge bench and last-minute appeal against the interim orders. The bench remarked that AICTE chose to approach the appellate court only when the counselling process was nearing completion.

Questioning the timing of the appeal, the judges observed that such belated action naturally raised questions and asked whether there was any understanding between AICTE and the colleges or whether any fraud was involved. The court noted that the appeal did not reflect the seriousness expected of a statutory regulatory authority.

Observing that the fate of students admitted to the institution should not be left in uncertainty, the division bench said the dispute required an expeditious adjudication rather than prolonged interim litigation.

It directed AICTE to file its counter-affidavit along with a petition to vacate the interim order before the single judge on or before August 7, while permitting the colleges to file their rejoinder thereafter.

 HC Notice to Telangana Govt on Plea Against Yadadri Temple Board Formation

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday issued notices in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of recently introduced provisions governing the constitution of the board of trustees for the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam at Yadagirigutta.

The petition was filed by devotee Nagilla Srinivas along with the temple founder trustee Bhaskarayani Narasimha Murthy. It questioned the validity of Sections 96 and 97 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as inserted through the Amendment Act of 2025. It also assailed GO 392 dated June 30 through which the government constituted the board.

They contended that the amended provisions unlawfully reduced the founder trustee to the status of an ordinary member with voting rights, instead of recognising the founder's special role in the administration of the temple.

The petitioners argued that the statutory scheme introduced by the state government was an interference in the autonomy of Hindu religious institutions and permitting government-appointed trustees to exercise control over matters relating to temple administration, rituals, customs and religious practices.

Challenging the appointment of the chairman of the Yadadri Temple Board, they contending that the government failed to accord due consideration to the recognised founder trustee. According to the petition, the decision was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs AP State’, which recognised the significant role of founder families in the administration of religious institutions.

The petition alleged that the board was constituted through a Government Order instead of the statutory notification contemplated under the amended law, rendering the exercise legally unsustainable.

The petitioners sought a declaration that the impugned provisions were unconstitutional and also prayed for suspension of GO 392, besides a direction to appoint the founder trustee as chairman of the board in accordance with law.

The court issued notices to the state government, the commissioner of endowment, executive officer of the Sri Lakhmi Narasimha Swamy Temple and the recently appointed chairman and members of the board of trustees.

 HC Asks Govt to Explain Legality of Wage Revision Under Repealed 1948 Act

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday called upon the government to explain whether the process initiated for revising minimum wages under the repealed Minimum Wages Act, 1948 could legally culminate in a final notification after the Code on Wages 2019 had come into force, or whether the exercise ought to have been restarted under the new statutory regime.

Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the revision of minimum wages, the bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin identified this as the principal legal issue requiring adjudication, granted the state two weeks to place its stand on record and adjourned the matter to August 20.

Counsel for the state submitted that the previously notified minimum wages, together with the variable dearness allowance (VDA), continued to remain operative until the revised wages notified through GO 6 dated May 30 came into force on June 1.

The bench observed that the principal legal issue identified during the previous hearing remained unanswered. It sought a clear explanation on whether the process initiated under the 1948 Act could lawfully culminate in a final notification after the Code on Wages came into force on 21 November 2025 or whether the entire exercise ought to have been undertaken afresh under the new legislation.

Chikkudu Prabhakar, counsel for the petitioner, contended that minimum wages in several scheduled employments had remained unrevised for nearly two decades, depriving workers of their statutory entitlement. He argued that the government's latest notification had, in several categories, reduced the wage structure and could facilitate the exploitation of workers.

 Developer Delay Can’t Deprive Taxpayer of Sec 54F Exemption: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that an assessee could not be denied exemption under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act merely because a developer had failed to complete construction and get the property registered on his name within the statutory period.

The court noted that the provision was a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at encouraging investment in residential housing and must be interpreted liberally where the taxpayer had already invested capital gains in the new property.

“The beneficial provisions of the Income Tax Act should be construed liberally to advance their legislative objective rather than defeated by procedural or third-party delays,” the High Court observed.

Section 54F allows individuals to claim exemption on long-term capital gains earned from selling long-held capital assets other than residential property. According to the provision, an individual “shall purchase house within two years” or “construct new house within three years” to save the long term capital gains realised from selling of long-term property.

A division bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was dealing with an appeal filed by Mettu Sudhakar Reddy, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), challenging the orders of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the income-tax Department denying him exemption under Section 54F.

The appellant, along with 45 other landowners, had entered into a joint development agreement with a developer in May 2016 for the development and sale of their property of about 4.5 acres at Guttala Begumpet in Serilingampally. The sale consideration was about Rs 43.61 crore as against SRO value of Rs 62.86 crore.

As per the DAGPA, the owners and developer shares were 47.25 per cent and 52.75 per cent respectively. As the assessee was among the 46 owners, the share of the assessee was 1/46th of the land. The assessee’s share in chargeable sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act for computation of long term capital gain was Rs 64,57,000.

As Sudhakar Reddy had not filed the assessment for that year, the I-T department issued notices. Responding, he had submitted that he was yet to receive the residential villa under the agreement; the developer was required to hand it over within 36 months but had not done so.

Disputes among the developer's partners delayed completion of the project. Citing this delay, the income-tax department rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F on the long-term capital gains arising from the transaction, assessed it and also imposed penalty for non-filing of the assessment. The DRP and the ITAT upheld the department's stand.

Setting aside the orders of the tax authorities and the ITAT, the High Court held that once an assessee had invested capital gains in acquiring or constructing a residential house, the exemption could not be denied merely because the registered sale deed was not executed or construction was not completed within the prescribed period due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.