Person With Personal Interest Cannot Maintain PIL : CJ
Resurvey of alleged forest land ordered by HC
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court ruled that a public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be entertained at the instance of a person having a personal or pecuniary interest in the dispute. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin dismissed a PIL seeking inquiry into alleged illegal transactions, alienations and unauthorised use of surplus agricultural land covered under the land ceiling Act at Karimnagar, filed by Bandari Shekar. It was the case of the petitioner that state authorities had failed to take immediate possession and control of the surplus land, contending that the same was required to be held in government custody under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and 1974 Rules. Counsel for the petitioner argued that excess land had been resumed by the government pursuant to an order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal in 1975 and that compensation was paid.
He argued that the land measuring about 5 acres along with an additional 1.1341 acres in excess of the ceiling limit had vested in the state, and the order of Tribunal had attained finality as appeals filed against it were dismissed. He pointed out that some private individuals were illegally selling the surplus land which ought to have been distributed to the landless poor. He contended that representations made to the tahsildar seeking resumption of the land were not acted upon. The panel observed that neither the representations nor the affidavit disclosed that the PIL was filed on behalf of landless poor persons and the exact particulars of the land allegedly subjected to illegal transactions.
On the contrary, it observed that, the representations indicated that the petitioner had an interest in taking the land on lease. The panel observed that while the petitioner claimed to be a public-spirited person with no personal interest in the land, he had, in the same representations, stated that he was cultivating the land, thereby revealing a direct interest in the subject matter. Speaking for the panel, Chief Justice Singh ruled that the petition lacked the essential attributes of a genuine PIL. Accordingly, the panel dismissed the writ petition.
HC bail to woman in possession of commercial quantity of Ganja
The Telangana High Court granted bail to a woman accused in a ganja trafficking case involving seizure of 33.058 kilograms of contraband, while refusing bail to the co-accused. The criminal petition was filed by Rajesh Bishoyi and Sujata Singh, arrayed as Accused 2 and 3, who sought bail in a crime registered by the Railway Police Station, Secunderabad GRP. According to the prosecution, RPF personnel during a joint check at the Begumpet railway station found the accused sitting in the waiting hall with two trolley suitcases, which on inspection were found to contain 16 packets of ganja weighing about 33.058 kilograms. The petitioner contended that they had been falsely implicated without evidence and nexus.
It was pointed out that during enquiry, the accused allegedly stated that the suitcases were received from another accused at the Chatrapur railway station and were intended to be transported to Mumbai. The state contended that the seized contraband constituted a commercial quantity and that the case attracted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, apart from submitting that the investigation was still in progress.
The court noted that Section 37 imposed a statutory bar on grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity unless the court was satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court ruled that these twin conditions were not satisfied in respect of Accused No. 2. Taking note of that Accused No. 3 was a woman with a one-year-old infant child, the court granted her conditional bail, subject to execution of bond, furnishing of sureties, and weekly appearance before the police.
Applicability of Fire Services Act to Firecracker shops challenged.
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court heard inconclusively a writ plea challenging the application of the Telangana Fire Services Act to firecracker shops allegedly governed by central explosives law. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by the Fire Works Dealers Association challenging action of state to enforce licensing and regulatory requirements under the Fire Services Act, 1999, on wholesale fireworks dealers holding licences under the Explosives Act and the rules framed thereunder.
The petitioner would challenge a GO of 2016, under Sections 14 and 15 of the Fire Services Act, which prohibited sale and storage of firecrackers in temporary or permanent premises without a licence from the fire services department. It was contended that once the field of licensing, storage, and regulation of explosives stands occupied by Central legislation, the state fire services law cannot extend to firecracker shops for grant of licence, though it may apply to general establishments. The state would argue that they have been regulating establishments related to hazardous-fire related domains. The judge posted the matter after two weeks.
Resurvey of alleged forest land ordered by HC
Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed authorities to conduct a joint survey in a writ plea alleging encroachment over forest land at Karimnagar district. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Kankanala Kishtamma, a tribal woman, alleging illegal interference by forest and revenue officials in agricultural land admeasuring about 1.02 acres in Survey No. 129 of Kaleshwaram village, Mahadevpur mandal of which she was in possession. The petitioner sought protection of possession on the strength of a D-Form patta said to have been issued in her favour.
The forest department contended that the land formed part of notified reserve forest and relied upon a gazette notification issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. It was pointed out that while an extent of 164.02 acres stood declared as reserve forest, the remaining 227.19 acres fell outside such notification, and that the petitioner could not simultaneously claim a patta and also assert that the land was reserve forest.
The Forest authorities also pointed out that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging encroachment, fencing and clearance of bush growth in forest land. The revenue authorities, on the other hand, submitted that the patta was issued as assigned land in favour of the petitioner as she belonged to a tribal community, and that no patta would have been granted in respect of land falling within reserve forest limits.
The court noted inconsistencies in the claim of petitioner qua long-standing possession, particularly in view of the patta having been issued only in 2011. Holding that revenue authorities are not empowered to assign land notified as reserve forest and observing that forest land cannot be “fiddled with”, the judge directed the concerned authorities to conduct a joint survey and demarcate the land to ascertain whether it falls within reserve forest or government land. The writ petition was accordingly disposed.
