SC Declined To Interfere Land Dispute Between TGIIC and Private Parties

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to intervene in the interim orders passed by the Telangana High Court in the Raidurg land dispute involving the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), Shahana Haider and others.

A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli said that TGIIC should file an impleadment petition before the High Court if it believed its rights were likely to be affected by the proceedings. The court held that it was not appropriate to directly examine the grievance without the High Court first considering the corporation's objections.

To enable the petitioners to approach the High Court, the Supreme Court ordered that the status quo be maintained for one week.

Appearing for TGIIC, senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan argued that the High Court had ordered a survey of the disputed land without impleading the corporation as a party to the proceedings. He contended that such a direction could adversely affect TGIIC's interests.

Opposing the plea, counsel Nitish Gupta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the original orders passed in 2008 had been set aside. He argued that TGIIC had an effective remedy before the High Court by filing an impleadment petition instead of seeking direct intervention from the Supreme Court.

After hearing both sides, the bench declined to stay the High Court's directions relating to the survey or any consequential proceedings. The judges reiterated that all objections should first be raised before the High Court, which is already seized of the matter.

Set back to Film Actor Venkatesh and his family in a criminal case

Hyderabad: In a setback to film actor Daggupati Venkatesh and his family members, D. Suresh Babu, actor Rana Daggubati, D. Abhiram and their accountant Gaddam Vishwanatham, the Telangana High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them on charges of allegedly trying to take possession of their property in Filmnagar, which they had given out on long-term lease.

Justice N. Tukaramji dismissed their criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings in the chargesheet pending before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. The petitioners had contended that the dispute was civil in nature, arising out of leasehold rights, possession and demolition of structures, and criminal law had been wrongly invoked.

The case was lodged by a private complaint, Kore Nandu Kumar, alleging that Venkatesh and the others, acting in conspiracy with GHMC officials, had facilitated demolition of structures allegedly raised by him on the leased premises. He also accused them of unlawfully trespassing into the property, removing articles, criminally intimidating the complainant and his family members, and committing offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The magistrate had taken cognizance of the chargesheet after examining the complaint and sworn statements. Challenging the proceedings before the Magistrate Court, Venkatesh and others approached the High Court in 2024.

Dismissing their quash petition, the High Court observed that at the stage of cognizance, neither the Magistrate nor the High Court was expected to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The inquiry was confined to determining whether the complaint, sworn statements and supporting material disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.

The High Court noted that the complainant Nandu Kumar had specifically alleged unlawful dispossession despite subsisting interim injunction orders.

The High Court also rejected the argument that the Magistrate had mechanically issued the process without application of mind. It found that the Magistrate had considered the complaint, sworn statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry and the supporting material before arriving at a prima facie satisfaction to proceed against the accused.

HC directs Additional Collector to appear to ascertain the facts on submissions of HYDRAA

Hyderabad: HYDRAA's submission before the Telangana High Court that it demolished a compound wall and structures in a 350-square-yard plot in Survey No. 60 of Kondapur on the directions of the then-Serilingampally tahsildar's office prompted the court to summon the official, K. Venkat Reddy, now additional collector (revenue), Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar directed the officer to appear before the court on August 12 to ascertain whether the revenue authorities during his tenure in 2025 wrote a communication to HYDRAA to demolish the structures, and if the authorities had actually conducted a survey, determined that the land was government property, and followed the mandatory legal procedure, including issuing notice to the landowner, before the demolition was carried out.

The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Pemmasani Sudha Rani, who complained against HYDRAA for demolishing the structures and compound wall Plot 9/B of Survey No. 60 of Kondapur.

Senior counsel S. Sridhar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the landowner had never received any notice regarding the proposed survey, any communication declaring the land as government property nor any demolition notice.

Katram Muralidhar Reddy, government counsel for revenue, submitted that the survey conducted by the ADE of Rangareddy district did not mention the plot as government land situated in Survey No. 59. Petitioner's counsel Sridhar contended that HYDRAA had acted in a highhanded manner, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.

The judge asked whether an officer did not even know if notice had to be issued to the parties concerned before claiming the land. “Does a civil servant have the authority to demolish every structure or compound wall at will, without giving citizens an opportunity to approach the courts? Are you working for the people or for someone else," the judge observed,

HC issued Notices in a petition seeking removal of non-tribal voters in scheduled areas

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond on a batch of writ petitions challenging the acceptance of the Telangana Family Register Certificate (T-FRC) as a valid document for the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral roll-2026.

In separate petitions, electors questioned the government's decision to issue GO 172, revenue department, dated July 25, whereby the T-FRC was included in the list of documents prescribed for the SIR exercise.

According to the petitioners, the FRC was generated on the basis of the food security card/ration card database maintained under the National Food Security Act, 2013, which was intended only to facilitate access to government services. They contended that the FRC conferred no legal right and, therefore, could not be treated as a document for determining eligibility for inclusion or retention of names in the electoral roll under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Counsel for the petitioners Gummala Bhaskar Reddy and Shashikiran contended that the decision to recognise the FRC as an eligibility document was arbitrary, unconstitutional and lacked intelligible differentia. They argued that a document that was neither proof of citizenship nor legally recognised could not be recognized for electoral enrolment.

The petitioners sought a direction from the court for restraining the ECI and the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana, from identifying, recognising or receiving the certificate as a valid document for voter enrolment or retention of names in the electoral rolls.

When the division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin was hearing the petitions, ECI counsel sought time to get instructions. Considering this, the court adjourned the matter until August 12.

HC directs ECI response on considering Family Register Certificate as valid document in SIR

Hyderabad: A petition has been filed before the Telangana High Court seeking effective implementation of the special intensive revision (SIR) the of electoral roll in Scheduled Areas by identifying and removing the names of non-tribal persons who are allegedly not legally entitled to be enrolled as residents and voters.

The petition contended that the authorities had undertaken the SIR in the Scheduled Areas without adhering to the statutory safeguards governing tribal regions, including the Telangana Tribal Areas Regulation, 1359 Fasli (1949), the Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970, and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin on Thursday directed the Union tribal affairs ministry, the state tribal welfare department, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Telangana, and collectors of the relevant districts to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks.

The petitioner argued that despite representations highlighting the legal protections available to tribal communities in the Fifth Scheduled Areas, the authorities proceeded with the revision process without following the mandatory statutory framework.

The petition sought directions to subject all enumeration forms received during the current SIR-2026 exercise in the Fifth Scheduled Areas to strict scrutiny under the applicable tribal laws and requested the court to direct that any future enrolment of non-tribal persons in the Scheduled Areas should be permitted only after verification of the relevant statutory records, obtaining a no-objection certificate from the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) project officer concerned, wherever required, and securing the approval of the gram sabha concerned in accordance with the provisions of the PESA Act.