Stamps Dept Ordered To Refund ₹12.6 L
Mayur Mundra, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the refusal to adjust or refund the amount was illegal and arbitrary.
Hyderabad: Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court directed the commissioner of the registration and stamps department to refund Rs. 12.6 lakh to a group of petitioners, after authorities refused to adjust stamp duty paid in connection with execution proceedings. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Naseem Begum and others. The petitioners stated that they had deposited about Rs. 12.6 lakh towards stamp duty in 2016 in compliance with an order passed by a civil court in an execution petition relating to a property at Sayeedabad.
According to the petitioners, the judgment debtor challenged the decree and the execution proceedings by filing multiple proceedings before the High Court, all of which were later dismissed. When the husband of one of the petitioners later approached the registration department seeking adjustment of the stamp duty already paid, the authorities refused, citing a government order prescribing a six-month validity period for utilisation of e-stamp payments. Mayur Mundra, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the refusal to adjust or refund the amount was illegal and arbitrary.
He argued that although limitation may bar a remedy, it does not extinguish the underlying right to seek a refund. The amount, he submitted, had been deposited bona fide in compliance with the civil court’s order and could not be denied merely on technical grounds. After hearing the submissions, Justice Pulla Karthik directed the registration authorities to refund ₹12,60,000 to the petitioners within six weeks and disposed of the writ petition.
Seizure notice against hospital suspended
Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court suspended a seizure notice issued against Nani Mini Hospital in Medchal after criminal proceedings against a doctor alleged to have practised without an MBBS qualification were earlier quashed. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by the hospital challenging the seizure notice issued on July 29, 2025, by the district medical and health officer (DMHO). The petitioner sought a declaration that the sealing of the hospital and the failure of the authorities to re-open the premises were illegal, arbitrary and violate the provisions of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. It was pointed out that a complaint was lodged before the Suraram police alleging that one Kommu Venkateshan, who allegedly did not possess an MBBS qualification, was practising as a doctor at the hospital. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered and a chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Medchal. Subsequently, the DMHO inspected the hospital premises and issued a seizure notice, resulting in the sealing of the establishment. The petitioner contended that the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR and the chargesheet. The judge observed that the very basis for the seizure notice required reconsideration. Accordingly, the court suspended the seizure notice and issued notice to the commissioner of health and family welfare and other respondent authorities, directing them to file their responses.
Status quo ordered on solar plant land
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered status quo and stayed further proceedings on a notice issued by revenue authorities concerning land on which a solar plant has been established in Narayanpet district. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Tri Solar Private Limited challenging a notice issued by the tahsildar in respect of land admeasuring about 19 acres situated at Mandipalli in Dhanwada mandal. According to the petitioner, the company purchased the land and established a solar plant after obtaining certification from the tahsildar stating that the property did not fall under inam, ceiling, Bhoodan or Waqf categories. Despite this certification and the establishment of the plant, the tahsildar issued the impugned notice without specifying the nature of the alleged violation or the classification of the land. During the hearing, the judge questioned the petitioner why it had approached the High Court without responding to the notice. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a detailed reply had been filed addressing all the issues raised and argued that the notice itself lacked material particulars regarding the land. Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing and directed that the Bhoodan Board be impleaded as a party in the matter and posted the case for further hearing.