Top

HC sets aside registration of villa owners society in Gopanpally

Holding that the registration suffered from procedural infirmities, the judge set aside the registration of the society.

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the registration of the Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited formed by a group of villa owners in a gated community at Gopanpally, holding that the statutory procedure under the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act was not properly followed.

Petitioners B. Srinivas Rao and another questioned the action of the district cooperative officer in registering “Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited” without issuing notice to all owners and without proper verification. It was contended that the project comprised 105 villas and 12 LIG/EWS units, and that the society was registered at the instance of a few residents to the exclusion of the majority.

The state defended the registration, stating that proposals were submitted through the E-Sahakara portal, a field verification was conducted on October 15, 2022, and the society was registered on October 21, 2022. The respondent society contended that it presently represented 57 villas and was maintaining common amenities at its own cost.
The judge enquired if the society was formed in accordance with the provisions of the TMACS Act. On examining the record, the judge found inconsistencies in the field inspection report and held that proper enquiry and verification were not carried out before issuing the registration certificate. Relying on an earlier order, the judge reiterated that the registrar must verify compliance with statutory requirements and consider objections before granting registration.
Holding that the registration suffered from procedural infirmities, the judge set aside the registration of the society.
The promoters were directed to draft bye-laws in accordance with the Act and submit a fresh application, which the competent authority shall consider in accordance with law. The judge further directed that the funds collected by the society be kept in a suspense account and returned to the contributorsafter deducting expenses.

Accused in sword attack gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 22-year-old accused in a case involving an alleged sword attack following a rally marking the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

The Court was hearing a criminal petition filed by Monu Singh Sardar Tejpal Singh, arrayed as accused No. 6, seeking pre-arrest bail in a crime registered at Attapur Police Station.

According to the prosecution, the accused, along with others, attacked the brother of the complainant with swords in a Gurdwara parking area, causing bleeding injuries.

The petitioner contended that no specific overt act was attributed to him either in the complaint or in the statement of the injured witness and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

The prosecution opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations. However, the Court observed that there were no specific allegations detailing the individual role of the petitioner.

Taking into account the stage of the investigation, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.

Custodial torture plea in HC

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition alleging custodial torture and false implication in criminal cases.

The petition was filed by Veldanda Sadanandam along with the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, seeking action against state authorities and police officials of Vemulawada Police Station in Rajanna Sircilla district.

The petitioner alleged that police subjected him to mental and physical torture, including the use of third-degree methods, and falsely implicated him in three FIRs.

The plea sought initiation of departmental action against the concerned police officials, an independent inquiry by the CBI, and compensation of ₹1 crore.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations are against police officials who are themselves conducting the investigation, raising concerns of bias and conflict of interest.

It was further contended that inconsistent stands have been taken by the respondents and that material discrepancies exist in the versions placed on record.

The Court has posted the matter for final hearing.

Next Story