Plea to Denotify Forest Land Dismissed by High Court

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the release of 100 acres of land from a reserve forest notification, reiterating that long-delayed proprietary claims and complex title disputes could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, was hearing a writ petition filed by Baqtawar Begum and 11 others challenging the refusal by the state government to de-notify land situated in Sahebnagar Kalan village, Hayathnagar mandal of Rangareddy district. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged Section 3 of the AP Forest Act, 1967 which empowers the state to constitute any forest land or wasteland, which is the property of the government or over which it has proprietary rights, as a reserved forest. It was the case of the petitioner that the action of the authorities in refusing to release the land from the notification, while relying on earlier proceedings and judgments, was arbitrary and illegal. Additional advocate-general Imran Khan contended that the claims of the petitioners were not tenable and that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact relating to title and possession. He would contended that the matter related to land that had long been treated as part of the reserve forest and that the challenge had been raised after a lapse of several decades and that the proclamation under the Forest Act remained valid and binding. The panel observed that the dispute involved intricate questions of fact and title that could not be decided by invoking writ jurisdiction. The panel, observed that the writ petition was devoid of merit accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

Flat Building Contractor writ plea dismissed

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed writ appeals challenging cancellation of allotment of an unfinished residential tower in a housing project at Pocharam. The appeals were filed by Mahandi Builders and several flat purchasers questioning the action of Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited in cancelling the allotment of a residential tower and forfeiting the amount paid. The corporation allotted the unfinished tower consisting of 120 flats to the builder for about ₹29.51 crore under an “as-is-where-is” condition, requiring payment of 10 per cent of the amount initially and the balance within 120 days. The builder paid the initial amount with a delay and failed to pay the remaining consideration even after extensions were granted. The corporation thereafter cancelled the allotment and forfeited the amount paid. Flat purchasers claimed that they had booked flats in the tower and obtained housing loans, and sought issuance of no-objection certificates from the corporation. After hearing the parties, the panel noted that the allotment conditions clearly required timely payment of the consideration and that the builder failed to comply with the stipulated schedule despite extensions granted by the corporation. The panel observed that the flat purchasers had entered into agreements only with the builder and possessed no contractual relationship with the corporation. Holding that the dispute arose purely out of contractual obligations and that no ground existed to interfere with the cancellation of allotment, the panel found no error in the order of the single judge and dismissed the writ appeals.

HC quashes police notice issued through Whatsapp.

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court quashed a police notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, holding that serving such notice through WhatsApp and email was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Vamshi Krishna Parepalli challenging the notice issued by the investigating officer of the WPS-IT Corridor police station, Cyberabad, in connection with a crime registered against him. The notice dated February 20 had been sent electronically as part of the investigation The petitioner contended that serving the notice through WhatsApp and email was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The state did not dispute the legal position. After hearing both sides, the judge held that in view of the Supreme Court guidelines, the impugned notice could not be sustained. Consequently, the court quashed the notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS. However, it clarified that the investigating officer was free to continue the investigation in accordance with law. The criminal petition was accordingly disposed of.