98-Year-Old Farmer Approaches HC Against Merging Ameenpur Civic Body
He contended that the proposed restructuring fundamentally altered the regulatory, fiscal, and developmental regime applicable to his property, including its classification and permissible land use.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by a 98-year-old agriculturist questioning the constitutional validity of the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act 3 of 2026) and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Second Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act 2 of 2026). The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin was dealing with petition stating that these legislative enactments, which effectively dissolved the Ameenpur municipality and merged its jurisdiction into the GHMC, were arbitrary and violated constitution rights. It was contended that the petitioner, an active agriculturist utilising his land for farming, was directly affected by the impugned amendments. He contended that the proposed restructuring fundamentally altered the regulatory, fiscal, and developmental regime applicable to his property, including its classification and permissible land use. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the deletion of Ameenpur municipality from Schedule I of the parent Act constituted a "de facto dissolution" without adhering to the mandatory safeguards under Article 243U, which provides for municipalities (urban local bodies) having a fixed five-year term from their first meeting. It mandates that elections to constitute a new municipality must be completed before the expiration of this term, or within six months if dissolved early, ensuring democratic continuity.
He would point out that the action of authorities in first stripping Ameenpur of its municipal status and subsequently absorbing it into the GHMC was a circumvention of constitutional requirements intended to bypass procedural fairness and the rights of elected representatives and local residents. It was alleged that these changes carry substantial civil consequences. He argued that the absence of procedural fairness rendered the legislative action manifestly arbitrary and constitutionally infirm. The petition also raised concern over the impact of the amendment on democratic representation, stating that the move disrupted the functioning of an elected local body and delayed the conduct of municipal elections, thereby undermining participatory governance. The panel after hearing the arguments observed that the matter was expected to raise significant constitutional questions regarding the limits of legislative power over municipal bodies and the enforceability of safeguards under Article 243U, particularly in cases involving restructuring or absorption of local governance institutions. The panel accordingly adjourned the matter granting time to the respondent to file their counter.
Wife challenges right of Muslim husband to seek divorce before family court
The Telangana High Court will examine the jurisdiction of Family Courts to entertain divorce petitions by husband under the uncodified Muslim personal law, in a writ petition challenging the maintainability of such proceedings, and directed the respondents to file their responses. Justice N. Tukaram was dealing with a writ petition filed by the wife, assailing the proceedings initiated by her husband before the Principal Family Court, Hyderabad, on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction. Mohammad Adnan, counsel for the petitioner, argued that in absence of any statutory framework prescribing grounds for a husband to seek divorce through a judicial forum, the Family Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.
He argued that there were contradictory judgments of division benches and single judge across High Courts on this issue, with some courts holding that only in cases of ‘talaq-e-mubarat’, where no adjudication on grounds is required, can a husband approach the court. The petitioner, therefore, sought a declaration that the proceedings before the Family Court were illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions of the Family Courts Act and applicable principles of personal law. Taking note of the constitutional and legal implications involved, the Court directed the respondents to file their responses.
Bail for advocate in road accident case
The Telangana High Court granted bail to an advocate accused of deliberately ramming a motorcycle with a car during a chase. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Marikanti Madhawaraj, who sought bail in connection with a crime registered at Shamshabad police station for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on March 19, when the complainant and his friend allegedly chased a car in which the wife of complainant was travelling. It was pointed out that at Aramghar crossroads, the car reportedly reversed and rammed into the bike of complainant, causing injuries.
The complainant alleged that the act was intentional and amounted to an attempt to kill. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no intention to cause death and that the case was motivated by personal disputes, pointing out that the petitioner is an advocate who represented the wife of complainant in a divorce case. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was in judicial custody since March 19 and that a substantial part of the investigation already been completed.
The state opposed the plea, contending that the offence was serious in nature and that the victim was still undergoing treatment, with medical reports awaited. Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the period of custody, the judge allowed the bail plea, noting that although the investigation is still underway, continued custodial detention is not necessary.
