Status Quo Ordered for Secunderabad Temple Works amid Legal Challenge

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the reconstruction works of Sri Kanyakaparameshwari Temple on Somasundaram Street in Secunderabad and called upon the respondents to file their counters with details of the ongoing construction work.

Justice Surepalli Nanda passed the interim direction while hearing a writ petition filed by Nagilla Srinivas, president of the Telangana Temple Conservation Society, who questioned the legality of the reconstruction, allegedly being carried out on government land without requisite authority or statutory permissions.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel L. Ravichander submitted that the temple had historically been managed by a committee since the Nizam era. He stated that the Kanyaka Parameshwari Devasthanam Sanstha, registered in 1901, continued the management until 2017.

He informed the court that a committee was constituted in 2023 and that disputes subsequently arose between the rival groups, each claiming to be the legitimate managing committee of the temple, leading to multiple criminal cases. Senior counsel submitted there were several disputes and misappropriation of temple funds and these were brought to the notice of the commissioner of endowment department from 2017 onwards, but no action was initiated. The court was informed that the old structure had been demolished and reconstruction had commenced despite the absence of lawful permissions.

Telangana HC Upholds Interim Order on Movie Ticket Price Hikes

A division bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in the interim orders passed by a single judge who had directed the state government to place any decision on enhancement of cinema ticket prices in the public domain at least 90 days prior to the release of the film. The division bench also asked the single judge to consider the concerns raised by cinema theatre owners and other stakeholders and decide the pending writ petition expeditiously.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with an appeal filed by Shine Screens India, which had challenged the orders of the single judge, stating that the interim order would affect the necessity of a ticket rate hike.

Avinash Desai, senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the single judge’s orders were in the nature of a public interest litigation, whereas the orders were issued in a writ petition filed by one person who had challenged the hike of ticket rates for ‘Mana Shankara Vara Prasad Garu’. That person cannot claim to be an interested person for all upcoming films, senior counsel argued.

It was argued that the single judge ought not to have granted such sweeping relief and that the order would adversely impact theatre operations and commercial decisions of exhibitors and producers.

On the other side, counsel Vijay Gopal appeared for the petitioner who had filed the writ petition before the single judge.

After hearing submissions, the division bench observed that the main writ petition was still pending before the single judge and that all issues raised in the appeal could be effectively canvassed in those proceedings, including by relying on earlier judgments of coordinate benches. The division bench also noted that the interim order had not, in fact, affected the release of the subject film.

Holding that no case was made out for intervention at the interim stage, the division bench disposed of the appeal without disturbing the single judge’s directions. At the same time, the bench granted liberty to all parties to raise their contentions in the pending writ petition.

Contempt Case: Telangana HC Takes Serious Note of IAS Officers' Absence; Sets Appearance for March 24

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday took serious note of the non-appearance of senior IAS officers in a contempt case arising out of prolonged non-payment of compensation for land acquired long ago. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar directed former revenue secretary Navin Mittal and former Rajanna Sircilla collector Sandeep Kumar Jha to personally appear before the court on March 24.

Justice Kumar was hearing a contempt petition filed by 74-year-old Bommena Ramavva, who alleged willful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions by the officials and others. The petitioner had approached the High Court in 2024 seeking compensation for 1,694 square yards of land in Survey No. 1-B of Kodurupaka, Boinapally mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district, which was taken over by the authorities on November 18, 2010. for the Mid-Maneru project without completing acquisition proceedings.

In the writ petition, the court had directed the state authorities to conclude the award proceedings and pay compensation within three months. Alleging non-compliance, Ramavva filed the contempt petition, which was heard by Justice Kumar on December 29 who directed the authorities to appear before court.

During the hearing Tuesday, CCLA (chief commissioner for land affairs) Lokesh Kumar and Garima Agarwal, collector of Sircilla district, sought exemption from personal appearance, which was granted. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the authorities stated that a notice would be issued to the petitioner for a consent award and that, if she agreed, the process would be completed within 60 days.

Alternatively, it was submitted that a general award would be passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within 12 weeks.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land was submerged and there was no scope for objections, adding that the petitioner was not willing to opt for a consent award. Recording the submissions, and considering the petitioner’s age, the court directed the authorities to pass a general award within eight weeks by following due procedure under law.

The court expressed strong displeasure over the failure of the then revenue secretary Mittal and then-collector Jha to comply with its earlier order, observing that officials cannot evade responsibility by citing subsequent transfers. The court made it clear that merely placing orders on file and moving on after transfers was unacceptable.

Noting that Mittal and Jha were officers in charge at the relevant time, the court directed them to remain present on March 24, and file their personal explanations for non-implementation of the earlier assurances given to the High Court.