The government pleader sought time to file a response.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court took on file a batch of writ pleas challenging the alleged attempts by government authorities to take possession of patta land in Gadwal for constructing a 350-bed hospital and a nursing college. The judge was hearing writ pleas filed by Chandramma and others, who contended that the plots were originally assigned for constructing houses and that their conversion for institutional purposes was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners argued that the actions of the authorities violated the AP Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, its Amendment Act, and Board Standing Order No. 15. They sought directions to restrain the authorities from dispossessing them of their assigned plots, which they claimed were lawfully allotted and possession delivered by the tahsildar, Gadwal. The government pleader sought time to file a response.
Promotion plea of epilepsy student taken up
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University (PJTSAU) to consider the case of a BSc (Hons.) agriculture student seeking promotion to the third year on medical grounds, citing neurological illness that disrupted his studies during the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by A. Bharath Chandra Reddy, who contended that he was admitted in 2020–21 and was diagnosed with focal epilepsy, which severely affected his academic performance and led to the accumulation of backlogs, resulting in the denial of promotion by the university’s Palem campus authorities. It was contended that the case of the petitioner merited relaxation under the University’s Undergraduate Programme Regulations, which permit leniency in attendance and course completion for students facing exceptional medical circumstances. Despite multiple representations, the petitioner claimed that the university failed to respond. University standing counsel submitted that the university did not receive the earlier representations, but assured that any fresh representation would be duly considered in accordance with the law. Observing that the university’s own regulations provide advisory support, flexibility for medical cases, and a seven-year window to complete the degree, the judge directed PJTSAU to examine the petitioner’s case and take an appropriate decision, keeping in view of the student’s medical condition and academic interests.
Non-payment not a DV Act breach: HC
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court on Friday stepped in to halt a criminal case against a husband, ruling that failure to pay rent or compensation under a domestic violence order could not be treated as a criminal breach of a protection order. The judge was hearing a criminal petition challenging criminal proceedings initiated by a magistrate for alleged violation of directions issued in a 2018 domestic violence case. The husband was prohibited from committing acts of domestic violence and directed to pay `6,000 per month towards alternative accommodation and `15 lakh as compensation to his wife. In 2023, the wife complained that the amounts were not paid, upon which the magistrate took cognisance of the breach of protection orders and launched criminal action. The husband contended that non-payment of monetary relief did not constitute breach of a protection order under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The judge noted that the sworn statement of the wife did not allege any fresh acts of domestic violence or violation of the protection clause. Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings clarifying the scheme of the Act, the judge held that penal consequences arose only when protection orders were breached, not when monetary directions are violated. Accordingly, the judge quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband.
