Telangana HC Tells Cops Not to Meddle in Civil Land Dispute

 Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, directed the sub-inspector and circle inspector of Shadnagar Police Station to act strictly in accordance with law and to refrain from interfering in civil dispute concerning land at Raikal Village. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Sajjan K. Agrawalla seeking police protection for enforcement of an injunction order passed by a civil court, which restrained interference with petitioner’s land. The petitioner alleged that despite the injunction, police failed to provide protection. The petitioner further alleged that local police personnel seized a JCB used at the site and removed certain structures, purportedly in connection with a criminal case registered at Shadnagar Police Station. He contended that the seizure and police inaction were arbitrary and amounted to interference in a civil matter. After hearing the parties, the judge directed that the police act only in accordance with law and granted protection to the petitioner to implement the civil court injunction. The writ petition was accordingly disposed off.

HC stays I-T action on cash seized in 2024

A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court directed the income-tax authorities not to take any further action based on the seizure of Rs 6.67 crore in cash from a private multiplex in Karimnagar. The vacation panel comprising of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka and Justice Lakshmi Narayana Alishetty were hearing a writ plea filed by Veera Venkata Raghavendra Babu Pusulri, general manager of Prathima Multiplex Private Limited, along with 42 other individuals, challenging the cash seizure carried out on March 16, 2024 under Section 132A of the Income-Tax Act. The petitioners contended that the seizure was illegal and violated the Constitution. The petitioner, who was the general manager since 2009, said that he was approached in February 2024 by acquaintances requesting temporary safekeeping of cash meant for agricultural land transactions. Owing to the secure premises and 24/7 surveillance, the petitioner agreed to store the cash in the multiplex accounts office. The cash, according to the petitioner, was withdrawn through proper banking channels by regular income-tax assessees who are co-petitioners. It was alleged that in the early hours of March 16, 2024, police entered the multiplex without a warrant, searched the premises, and seized the cash, which was then handed over to the Income-Tax Department. The petitioner was taken to the police station and questioned without prior notice or summons. Subsequently, a summons under Section 131(1A) of the Income-Tax Act was issued. Despite cooperating with the officials, the petitioner alleged that digital backups of mobile devices were seized without reasons or lawful authority. A panchnama was prepared the same day indicating that the cash was taken from police custody, and proceedings were conducted between 5.30 pm and 7.30 pm. However, the petitioner said that no copy of the requisition was provided, despite repeated requests. A representation submitted to the respondent authorities included names, PAN numbers, and confirmation letters of all depositors, explaining the source and purpose of the funds. On May 7, 2025, the deputy commissioner of Income-Tax replied that the claims would be examined during assessment proceedings and that any balance amount would be released in accordance with Section 132B. The petitioners contended that the continued seizure was causing immense hardship, especially as the cash involved life savings meant for land purchases. After hearing submissions, the panel ordered interim stay on the impugned proceedings and posted the matter for further hearing after the summer vacation.

HC restrains action on Airtel cables

Justice Nagesh Bheempaka of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, extended the interim order directing the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL), the energy department of Telangana, and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India, to refrain from disconnecting, removing, or cutting the cable wires of Bharti Airtel Ltd without prior notice and without cogent and justifiable reasons. The judge was hearing a pending writ petition filed by Airtel challenging the action of respondent authorities in removing its optical fiber cables installed on electric poles of TGSPDCL. The petitioner argued that the actions violated the Constitution and the Telecommunications Right of Way Rules. The petitioner sought an interim relief seeking to restrain the respondents from continuing such removals. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the cables were removed without any prior notice. In response, the respondent authorities contended that the petitioner owed significant outstanding charges and requested time to obtain instructions regarding the allegations of cable disconnection and to file a response. The judge while granting interim relief to the petitioner, directed respondent authorities to file their response.

Salary attachment order upheld

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court upheld an attachment order issued against the salary of a government employee who stood as a guarantor for a chit fund subscriber. The judge reiterated that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise stated in the contract. The judge was dealing with a civil revision petition filed by Jadi Lingaiah. The case arose from a salary attachment order passed by a civil court in execution of an arbitration award granted under the Chit Funds Act. The decree-holder, Brindavan Chits Karimnagar India Pvt. Ltd., obtained an award for Rs 8.15 lakh plus 18 per cent interest against the petitioner and several co-guarantors. When the award remained unpaid, the chit fund company initiated execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), resulting in a directive to withhold Rs 15.48 lakh from the petitioner’s salary. Challenging this order, the petitioner contended that the decree-holder must recover the amount either proportionately from all judgment debtors or solely from the subscriber. The judge rejected this argument, affirming that under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the liability of a surety is joint, several, and co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The judge extensively referred to precedents, which clarified that decree-holders are not obligated to proceed against all judgment debtors or to claim proportionate liability. The decree-holder may choose to proceed against any one or all of them. The judge also observed the importance of Section 60 CPC, which outlines exemptions and limitations on salary attachment. The executing court was directed to ensure compliance with statutory safeguards regarding attachment limits and timelines, including exemptions after continuous attachment for 24 months. The revision petition was disposed of with instructions to the executing court to verify compliance with the relevant provisions and to conclude the execution proceedings upon full satisfaction of the decree.