Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition over alleged lack of promotional avenues to assistant commissioners in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).
HYDERABAD: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition over alleged lack of promotional avenues to assistant commissioners in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K.J. Vijaya Krishna and 11 others, seeking a declaration that the action of the GHMC authorities in not granting promotions to the post of deputy commissioner, a permanent cadre post, is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought directions to frame service regulations providing promotional avenues for the permanent cadre posts of deputy commissioner, joint commissioner, zonal commissioner, and additional commissioner within the GHMC. The plea further sought a declaration that no government servant should continue on deputation in the GHMC for more than five years, contending that prolonged deputations adversely affect the promotional prospects of in-service officials. The petitioners contended that despite multiple representations and resolutions, including a Standing Committee Resolution and a General Body Resolution, no rules have been notified to enable promotions of GHMC cadre employees to the post of deputy commissioner. After hearing the preliminary submissions, Justice Madhavi Devi directed GHMC to file its response in the matter and posted the case for further hearing.
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court held that summoning an accused to face a criminal trial is a serious matter and cannot be done casually, while setting aside an order taking cognisance in a bigamy case after finding that the process was issued through a docket order without reasons. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Puli
Srikanth seeking quashing of proceedings initiated before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kushaiguda for an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate had issued summons through a cryptic docket order without application of judicial mind. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state, the judge examined the record and found that cognizance was taken against the petitioner without recording judicial satisfaction and without
assigning reasons. The judge noted that the summons were issued through a rubber-stamp docket order. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the judge reiterated that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record reasons
indicating that the material placed before the court discloses a prima facie case before issuing process. Holding that the impugned order did not reflect such application of mind, the judge set aside the docket order taking cognizance and issuing summons. The judge clarified that the Magistrate would be at liberty to reconsider the complaint and pass a fresh order in accordance with law by recording reasons.
RTC loses plea in land row
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a two-decade-old appeal challenging enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for land acquired to construct a bus depot at Kodad in Suryapet district. The panel
comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy was dealing with an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (now Telangana State Road Transport Corporation). The dispute traces back to a land acquisition notification issued on February 3, 1987 for acquiring about Ac.3-32 guntas of land near the existing RTC bus stand and abutting National Highway-9 at Kodad. The land acquisition officer, in an award passed in May 1990, fixed the market value at Rs. 33,333 per acre for wetland and Rs. 28,888 per acre for dry land. Dissatisfied with the
compensation, the landowners sought a reference before the civil court in 1991. After examining comparable sale transactions and noting the commercial potential of the land due to its proximity to the highway, bus stand and
urban development, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 141.12 per square yard (about Rs 5.57 lakh per acre). Challenging this enhancement, the transport corporation filed the appeal in 2003 contending that the Reference Court relied on sale deeds relating to small extents and had applied an inadequate deduction towards development charges, making the compensation excessive. Rejecting these submissions, the panel held that the Reference Court correctly assessed the location and potential of the land and properly relied on comparable sale transactions. The panel observed that sale instances involving smaller plots can be considered with appropriate deductions and found that the 20 per cent deduction applied towards development charges was reasonable. Finding no grounds to interfere with the
valuation fixed by the Reference Court, the panel dismissed the appeal and held that the landowners would be entitled to all statutory benefits, including solatium, additional compensation, and interest under the Land Acquisition Act.
