Telangana Contests Ownership of 383-Acre Maheswaram Forest Land

Hyderabad: The State Advocate General on Wednesday argued that the forest land of about 383 acres in Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy district, is being sought to be siphoned off based on a file noting on government files and without legal title. He argued the state’s appeal against an order of a single judge.

In earlier proceedings, the petitioner, claiming to be joint Munthakab holders (Muslim) of the said land acquired through succession from their ancestors, contended that the petitioners are the owners and patta holders of the land; the forest department was in possession of the same for more than 50 years with a proposal to acquire the same, but the respondents were not initiating any further steps to issue a fresh notification for the acquisition of land.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of forest authorities in rejecting the claim petition of the petitioners, holding that the land of the petitioners was part of ceiling surplus land and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation, is arbitrary and illegal and completely opposed to the stand taken by the authorities in earlier writ petitions. He further contended that the revenue records also show the title of the petitioners.

Per contra, the state argued that the revenue records from 1929 and the Sethwar show the said land as "Poramboke Kancha" (government land) and "Mahasura Jungle" (forest land) and that the revenue records in favour of the petitioners are fraudulent and therefore do not confer any title. The state maintained that even if the land were considered to belong to the petitioners, it would form part of their "surplus land" under land reform laws and, being in the possession of the forest department, it should be treated as government land for which no compensation is due.

The single judge, observing that the state failed to give a reason for classifying the land as Poramboke land, contrary to the entries in revenue records, held that the entries in the revenue record are conclusive proof of the title of the respective lands and the state has not been able to bring on record any evidence to prove otherwise except for the copy of the Sethwar where the subject land is claimed to be recorded as forest land. As the notification issued in 1999 lapsed, the same cannot be said to be "Poramboke Kancha" (government land). In the appeal, the Advocate General maintained that revenue records relied on by the respondents do not confer any title as per the settled principles of law.

The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar heard the appeal inconclusively and listed the appeal to April 7 for the successful writ petitioner to justify the order of the single judge.

The Telangana High Court ruled that arrest of a person cannot be reckoned from the time the tax authorities entered the premises of an assessee but only from the actual time of arrest. A two-judge panel presided over by the Chief Justice dismissed a writ petition challenging the arrest of the CEO of Fino Payments Bank Limited in a major GST evasion case involving alleged transactions of about Rs 3,000 crore and tax evasion of approximately Rs 840 crore.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ petition filed by Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta, challenging the legality of his arrest by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence on February 27, in connection with offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He also challenged the remand order passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, and sought release on bail.

It was the case of the petitioner that officials entered his office premises on February 26, restricted his movement, and recorded his statement through the night before formally arresting him in the early hours of February 27. He contended that this amounted to illegal custody beyond the permissible 24-hour period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The Union of India opposed the plea, contending that multiple summons and notices were issued seeking data relating to suspected GST evasion by certain entities linked to online gaming platforms. It was pointed out that the petitioner failed to cooperate and gave evasive replies, leading to search operations and subsequent arrest based on material collected during investigation.

The Court noted that the search concluded in the early hours of February 27, and that the arrest was recorded at 5.50 am on the same day. It further observed that the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate in Mumbai at 8.30 pm, within the constitutionally mandated 24-hour period. Rejecting the contention that the petitioner was in custody from the time officials entered the premises, the Court held that the presence of officers pursuant to a valid search authorisation and summons did not amount to arrest. Finding that the arrest was supported by material and that no violation of constitutional safeguards was made out, the writ petition was dismissed.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Monday admitted a writ petition alleging ragging, harassment, and academic discrimination against a postgraduate medical student at Kakatiya Medical College, affiliated with Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Dr Aiely Akhil, an MD (Microbiology) student, who alleged continuous discrimination and harassment by college authorities, including body shaming by the Head of Department. He further contended that his academic progress, particularly dissertation submission, District Residency Programme (DRP) posting, attendance, and stipend was adversely affected.

On the other hand, the respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner was absent, irregular, and frequently late to classes since September 2024, and was trying to invoke allegations of ragging to justify academic non-compliance. The petitioner submitted that he regularly marked attendance through the online system and that no notice was ever served regarding any alleged shortage of attendance.

He further contended that despite submitting a representation on March 16 to the respondent authorities, no action was taken, rendering the inaction arbitrary, contrary to the Telangana State Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 2002, and the NMC Anti-Ragging Regulations. The petitioner also sought an interim direction to the respondents to postpone or extend the Dissertation Submission Notification issued by the authorities until consideration of his representation, including issues relating to dissertation/research thesis submission, DRP posting, attendance updates, and stipend. Taking note of the rival submissions, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response in the matter and posted the case for further hearing.

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against family members of an accused in a cheating and sexual exploitation case, holding that continuation of the case against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Chittibola Bharadwaj Sharma and three others seeking to quash proceedings pending before a trial court in Medchal-Malkajgiri district.

The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated solely due to their relationship with the primary accused, against whom the core allegations were made. The prosecution alleged that the de facto complainant was induced into a relationship by primary accused on a promise of marriage, during which he allegedly obtained money, gold ornaments, and important documents from her. It was further alleged that he later refused to marry her and committed sexual assault.

However, it was argued that the allegations against the petitioners, who are family members, were vague in nature, without any specific role attributed to them. After examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Judge found that the entire dispute stemmed from a personal relationship between the complainant and accused No. 1, with no concrete material linking the petitioners to the alleged offences.

The judge further observed that mere familial association cannot be a ground to prosecute individuals in the absence of clear and specific allegations demonstrating active involvement. Relying on settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Judge observed that vague and omnibus allegations against family members, without supporting material, cannot sustain criminal prosecution. It further held that essential ingredients of cheating were not made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the judge quashed the proceedings against the family members of the main accused, granting them relief while leaving the case against the main accused to proceed in accordance with law.