Panel Cuts Land Value By Half, Court Stays e-auction

Hyderabad: Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court stayed an e-auction notice auctioning agricultural land offered as collateral security by a guarantor to a nationalised bank. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Malireddy Koti Reddy, challenging the impugned e-auction with a reserve price of Rs.6 crore in respect of about 11 acres of agricultural land. The petitioner contended that though he was only a guarantor, the creditors proceeded against his collateral after the principal borrower was declared bankrupt. It was contended that there were two earlier valuation reports placing the fair value of the land at Rs.17.22 crore and Rs.19.66 crore respectively.

A subsequent valuation report prepared in January by the same valuers drastically reduced the value to about Rs.10.66 crore, without assigning any reasons for such a steep depreciation. The petitioner alleged that the reduction of nearly 50 per cent in valuation was arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when land values generally remained stable or increase. The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that he had secured a buyer willing to purchase the land for Rs.11 crore and that proceeding with the auction at a reserve price of Rs.6 crore would cause irreparable loss and injury. It was also pointed out that though the auction was initially postponed to January 31, a fresh e-auction notice was issued on January 15 fixing the auction on February 2. Justice Renuka accordingly granted interim relief, directing that all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned e-auction notice shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing.

HC has limited scope on service matters

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court reiterated the limited jurisdiction of the writ court in dealing with punishment in service matters. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ appeal filed by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) challenging the order passed in a review petition. Writ petitioner Kishan Kumar Azmeera, a constable/sweeper in CISF, was removed from service in 2012 on charges of unauthorised absence and exhibiting an incorrigible attitude in light of his past service record. His statutory appeal and revision were dismissed, and a writ petition assailing the removal was also dismissed in 2018. Subsequently, in a review petition, the single judge modified the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement, holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge of unauthorised absence and directing grant of pensionary benefits.

Assailing the modification, standing counsel for the Central government contended that the single judge had transgressed the limited parameters of review jurisdiction under the CPC. It was argued that a review cannot operate as an appeal in disguise and that no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material was demonstrated. It was argued that the review court impermissibly re-appreciated the proportionality of punishment, which had been examined in the original writ proceedings. It was further contended that the respondent, being a member of a disciplined force, had repeatedly absented himself without authorisation and had failed to participate in the departmental enquiry despite multiple call-up notices, thereby justifying the penalty of removal. Appearing party-in-person, the respondent argued that the review was necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice and that the court was empowered to correct manifest injustice in exercise of its review jurisdiction. The panel ruled that the power of review was circumscribed and cannot be invoked to undertake a fresh appraisal of facts or substitute a different view on punishment. The court observed that the single judge had effectively re-assessed the material on record and altered the penalty, which was impermissible in review proceedings. The panel while allowing the appeal directed release of admissible terminal benefits, including general provident fund amounts, if not liable to forfeiture under the applicable rules, in accordance with law.

Panchayat action on land stalled

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Deshmukhi gram panchayat to not put the disputed gifted land to any use other than public utility, while hearing a writ petition raising ownership and survey-related concerns. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society. The petitioners alleged that the panchayat was claiming rights under a gift deed, and proposing to undertake construction on the disputed land, including the erection of a shed for activities ahead of the Shivaratri festival. The petitioners contended that ownership over the land and argued that any construction would infringe upon their property rights. It was pointed out that the survey department had conducted only an outer boundary survey without demarcating internal boundaries within the relevant survey number. The petitioners argued that the absence of proper demarcation created a risk of unlawful utilisation of their land. Counsel for HMDA submitted that the dispute was civil in nature and argued that the competent civil court could appropriately adjudicate the matter.

Can’t act on apprehensions: Police restrained on hookah parlour

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court issued directions restraining the police and the special operations team from interfering with business of Park Vue, a Gachibowli-based establishment, serving flavoured hookah. The judge was dealing with a writ petition alleging unlawful police interference. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the police was arbitrary interfering with the business and there was no violation of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The state argued that the petitioner had a licence to run a restaurant, it had no specific permission to serve flavoured hookah and had not disclosed the ingredients used, raising apprehensions of possible drug-mixing. Rejecting the state’s arguments, the judge observed that no statute contemplated a specific licence for operating a hookah parlour. The judge clarified that while the police were free to investigate and take action under the NDPS Act if there was concrete information regarding drug usage, they could not act on mere presumption without proper inquiry and due process. The judge held that only compliance with designated smoking areas and licence for charcoal usage is required.