How Was Child Handed Over Based on MLA’s Letter: HC

Hyderabad:Justice G. M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court, sitting in a vacation court, quizzed child welfare authorities over handing over custody of a five-year-old child to his father on the strength of an assurance letter issued by an MLA, and sought an explanation on the statutory basis for such transfer. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by a woman, a resident of Rochester, New York, seeking custody of her five-year-old son and challenging the action of the child welfare committee and other authorities in not handing over the child to her. The petitioner contended that the child, an Indian passport holder residing in the United States, was being illegally retained and sought directions to restore custody to the mother. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the child was subjected to abuse at the hands of his father and paternal relatives. Assistant government pleader for the women and child welfare department submitted that the district child protection unit conducted a social inquiry on May 7 and that the child welfare committee handed over custody of the child to his biological father and paternal grandmother on the basis of an assurance letter issued by the MLA from Nampally. Justice Mohiuddin observed that issues relating to custody of a minor fell within the jurisdiction of the family court and involved factual considerations concerning the welfare and best interests of the child, which were beyond the scope of writ proceedings. Expressing concern over the manner in which custody was transferred, the court directed the women and child welfare department to file a counter affidavit explaining the basis and justification for the actions of the district child protection unit and the child welfare committee in handing over custody of the child on the strength of an assurance letter from a legislator, and to disclose the statutory provision under which such action was taken. The court directed that failing such explanation, the officer concerned should appear personally and explain the legal basis for handing over custody of the child to the father without a judicial order.

Cops cleared in DVR removal case

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two police personnel accused of causing the disappearance of evidence in a sexual assault case, holding that temporary removal of a CCTV DVR without proof of destruction or tampering would not attract the offence. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Suryapaga Srikanth and another, challenging the proceedings pending against them on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, who were subordinate police personnel working under the main accused officer, removed a CCTV DVR from his apartment on his instructions after allegations of sexual assault and criminal intimidation surfaced against him. However, the DVR was later produced before the police intact and there was no allegation of tampering with the data. The judge held that the prosecution case substantially rested on alleged confessional statements made before the police, which were inadmissible in evidence without independent corroboration. The court further found that the essential ingredients required to attract the offence of causing disappearance of evidence were absent in the case. Relying on judgments of the apex court, the High Court held that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law and accordingly allowed the criminal petition by quashing the offences against the petitioner.

Review pleas spiked in Kanojiguda land case

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of review petitions arising out of a decades-long dispute over occupancy rights of inam land situated in Kanojiguda of Alwal, Rangareddy district, reaffirming that only the successors of the original inamdars were entitled to occupancy rights certificates (ORCs) under the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao was dealing with a batch of review applications filed against an earlier division bench judgment in relation to land in Survey No.s 366, 367 and 368 of Kanojiguda. The dispute involved rival claims between the successors of the original inamdars, the “Reddy brothers” or Kabiz-e-Kadim group, and auction purchasers, claiming rights through court auction sales. The review petitioners contended that the earlier division bench erroneously granted ORCs in favour of the inamdars without recording a conclusive finding regarding personal cultivation of the land as on the statutory vesting date of November 1, 1973. It was argued that pahanis and revenue records reflected continuous possession and cultivation by their predecessors for several decades and that material documentary evidence was ignored while rendering the earlier judgment. Rejecting the contentions, the panel held that the review petitioners were attempting to reopen findings already adjudicated on merits in the earlier round of litigation. Referring to settled Supreme Court principles governing review jurisdiction, the panel reiterated that review proceedings could not be treated as an appeal in disguise and that reappreciation of evidence was impermissible in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record. The panel observed that the earlier division bench had already concluded that the revenue entries relied upon by the “Reddy brothers” stemmed from a collusive civil decree and retrospective revenue mutations allegedly effected in 1980 without legal basis. The earlier judgment consequently held that the successors of the inamdars must be deemed to be in possession of the land as on November 1, 1973, and therefore entitled to ORCs under Section 4 of the 1955 Act. Dismissing the review petitions, the panel noted that several aggrieved parties had approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions and observed that reopening the concluded findings in review jurisdiction would result in parallel adjudication on identical issues. Consequently, all connected review applications stood dismissed.