Telangana High Court Upholds Land Grab Verdict Against Adilabad Businessman

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by a businessman from Adilabad, challenging orders passed by the Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act declaring him a land grabber in respect of two plots in Dasnapur village. The panel comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha was hearing two writ petitions filed by Yunus Khan and others, who questioned the legality of the Tribunal’s common order which declared the petitioner a land grabber in respect of 200 square yards in Dasnapur village, Adilabad, at the instance of the complainant Bairewar Bharat. The petitioner contended that he was in possession of the plots by virtue of an oral gift made in 1985 by one Tajuddin, who along with another individual allegedly purchased the land in 1974. He submitted that he had been residing there since construction of a hut and that the Tribunal had erred in holding him to be a land grabber, particularly when the respondents relied only on photocopies of regularization proceedings and a location sketch. The respondents, on the other hand, traced their title to a chain of registered sale deeds, starting from a patta issued in 1990 regularizing the encroachment in favour of one Bheem Rao. The land was subsequently sold to L. Ravinder Reddy and then to the respondents. They also relied on a 2010 Tahsildar’s report reflecting their names in the revenue records. It was alleged that the petitioner had dispossessed them in 2010. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, accepted the respondents' claim and declared the petitioner a land grabber. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on the Tahsildar’s report, contending that it was only meant for taking cognizance and could not form the basis of adjudication. The High Court panel, however, found no merit in the challenge. The panel held that the Tribunal did not solely rely on the verification report but had also considered registered title documents and the patta granted in 1990. The panel observed that since the respondents had substantiated their title through regularization and registered conveyances, the burden shifted to the petitioner to establish his right over the land. The panel further held that the petitioner failed to establish the essential requirements for a valid oral gift under Mohammedan Law namely, declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The panel noted that the petitioner had neither examined the alleged donor Tajuddin nor produced any document to show exclusive title or possession. The panel observed that mere assertion of oral gift without supporting evidence could not override the respondents’ registered title. It also rejected the petitioner’s claim of adverse possession, holding that such a plea cannot be made against the true owner, particularly when the petitioner claimed permissive possession through oral gift. The panel reiterated the limited scope of judicial review over orders of the Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, holding that no case of procedural infirmity, manifest error, or gross injustice was made out to warrant interference. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed.

IIT-H Student’s Plea on Re-Registration

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court was dealing with a writ plea filed by a student aspiring to complete the M. Tech course from IIT Hyderabad. The petitioner Gurukula Mahendra complaint that his M. Tech course at the IIT was not completed and he was arbitrarily denied permission for registration though he held a valid no objection certificate from his employee. The petitioner would contend that he was admitted to the 2017 batch of the M. Tech programme in Mechanical Engineering at IIT Hyderabad but could not complete the course. He subsequently obtained an NOC from his employer, BSNL Coimbatore, permitting him to complete his second year of study, and sought re-registration. The petitioner would contend that his representation was rejected orally by the institution after a delay of 30 days, without assigning any reason, and that such refusal to allow him to re-register and appear in exams was arbitrary and violative of his constitutional rights. During the hearing, Justice Shravan Kumar questioned the maintainability of the writ plea, observing that a person cannot be both a full-time employee and a full-time student, and sought to know if there was any letter from the university permitting the petitioner to work during his enrolment. The judge remarked that admission to an institution like IIT Hyderabad is a valuable opportunity and if a student is not serious, it deprives another deserving candidate. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge ordered notice to the respondents and posted the matter for further hearing.

HC Defers Hearing on IOV Bylaw Change

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court deferred hearing of a plea challenging recent amendments to the byelaws of the Institution of Valuers (IOV). The judge is dealing with a plea filed by a P.V. Rajesh, registered valuer. The petitioner contended that he is a corporate life member of IOV since 2015, who sought to contest the IOV Hyderabad Branch elections for the 2025–27 term. He would contend that the amendment to Bye-Law No. 59, passed in the 547th Council Meeting of the IOV held in May 2024, introduced new eligibility criteria that unjustly barred him, and others similarly placed from contesting elections. The petitioner argued that the said amendment was arbitrary, in violation of the Constitution, and contrary to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Companies Act, 2013. He would contend that the amendment restricted the rights of eligible members without proper notice or consultation, thereby infringing on their fundamental right to participate in the functioning of the society. It was alleged that the amendment was designed to selectively exclude certain members from contesting and had the effect of unfairly tilting the electoral playing field. The petitioner sought a direction from the court to set aside the disputed amendment and to allow his nomination to be processed for the upcoming elections without reference to the amended clause. Taking note of the submissions, the judge issued notice to the respondents, including the Election Officer, the Council of IOV, and the Telangana-Hyderabad Branch, and directed them to file their counters. The matter is posted for further consideration.

Rice Mill’s Plea to Clear Stocks Admitted

Justice Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition filed by a rice mill based in Nirmal district, over the inaction of authorities in lifting paddy stock allocated during the 2022-23 Rabi Marketing Season. The court is dealing with a plea filed by M/s Neelkanta Industries. The petitioner would allege that despite submitting a representation on June 9, the respondent authorities failed to initiate any steps for paddy lifting, nor did they pay crucial dues, including godown rent and allied service charges. The petitioner would point out that the charges in question include handling charges (hamali), moisture shortage adjustment (now 10% instead of 12%), fumigation, godown rent, and service charges as per SWC norms cumulatively amounting to ₹500 per quintal. The judge directed the respondents to come up with appropriate instructions by tomorrow.