Hyderabad: A two judge bench of Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed by state government and Hindustan Aeronautical Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited questioning the order of a single judge directing mutation of over 24 acres of land in Hafizpet in favour of a writ petitioner.
The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was dealing with two writ appeals challenging orders in writ petitions filed by Vediri Estates Private Limited and others. The petitioner purchased the land in 2005. The mutation request was allowed by tahsildar in 2005 but set aside by the revisional authority in 2007. A writ petition was preferred and the court set aside the order of joint collector and remanded it back for fresh adjudication. Though mutation was allowed, it was not implemented and the petitioner filed a writ petition to incorporate their names, which was allowed by the single judge. The cooperative society and the government preferred appeals.
The Additional Advocate General argued that neither the petitioner nor his vendor had any title as the land in question belonged to the government. Counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the mutation proceedings granted in their favour in 2009 were not challenged, hence no intervention was needed. Counsel for the implead petitioner, the housing society, argued that the society was a prior purchaser through sale deeds executed in 1981 and 1982.
The court directed that the nature of land purchased by petitioner should be deleted as government land. The court observed that mere entry in revenue records does not confer title, and the court cannot go into the question of dispute of title. It granted liberty to the housing society to avail alternative remedies and directed that entries in favour of the petitioner are subject to the outcome of appeal pending in the Supreme Court.
HC Dismisses Pleas Against Regn Act
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar dismissed a batch of writ pleas challenging Section 22a of the Registration Act. The writ petitions were filed by Invecta Technologies Pvt. Ltd and others. The provision prohibits registration of documents of government, assigned, endowment and Wakf land and lands declared surplus under agricultural and urban land ceiling Acts.
The petitioners said that under the garb of these probations, the government was adjudicating its own title. Petitioners’ counsel said the State was a juristic person and had a right to hold property under the Constitution. Hence, it cannot decide its title, which amounts to issuing a permanent injunction restraining registration of the documents under the Act.
It was also argued that the provision is violated of Article 300-A of the Constitution which mandates that no person shall be deprived of its property unless by authority of law.
The Advocate General said a legislative enactment can be challenged only on two grounds i.e., lack of competence and fundamental rights. The object of the Act was to protect the State against fraud and forgery in the registration of documents of transfer. The section does not prevent any person dealing with his property.
HC Stays Defamation Case Proceedings
Justice Anupama Chakravarthy stayed all proceedings in a criminal case against retired editor Mukund Padmanabhan. The former editor is facing charges of defamation at the instance of Sanjay Kumar Saxena, an Advocate.
According to the petitioner, the publication in question carried a story in which the complainant was “among those who moved the court claiming rights over a piece of land even though he was not involved in the matter.”
According to the petitioner, the newspaper carried an errata. He said that the news item was not intended to harm. It is alleged that the complaint is lodged for extraneous consideration, the complainant has also filed a suit for damages and the prosecution was directed to coerce and harass the petitioner. The judge stayed all proceedings in the defamation case on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
