Telangana HC Rejects Sub-registrar’s NOC Demand for Land Sale

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that the Sub-Registrar cannot insist on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation for registering a land sale document when the property was already cleared and registered in compliance with an earlier court order. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bheemanapally Jayamma who sought to register a document pertaining to 2 acres of land in Nalgonda district. The petitioner contended that she earlier obtained a clearance certificate from the district collector and chairman of the SC Service Cooperative Development Society Limited, which led to the release and registration of her mortgage deed following a High Court order. It was alleged that when she sought to sell the property to a third party, the Sub-Registrar, Gattuppal Mandal, refused to receive the document on the ground that no NOC from the Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation was produced. The government pleader contended that such a certificate was necessary before proceeding. Rejecting the argument of the state, the judge observed that there was no requirement for an additional NOC when the authorities themselves earlier registered and released the document after clearance from the competent authority.

HC query on Waqf Board CEO qualification

⁠The Telangana High Court on Thursday quizzed the state government as to whether an additional collector is equivalent to a joint secretary to qualify for being appointed as CEO of Telangana State Waqf Board. The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice V. Ramkrishna Reddy was dealing with an appeal filed by Md Asadullah, ex-chief executive officer (CEO). Earlier, a single judge dealt with a writ plea challenging the deputation of appellant and seeking to appoint a CEO, not below the rank of joint secretary as the regular CEO. The single judge while ordering notice to the respondents removed the appellant as an interim measure. The appellant argued that his removal was contrary to law, unjust and amounted to allowing the writ plea itself. The panel posted the matter to August 17 for further hearing.

HC hears MLA plea on cheque distribution

⁠Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court heard in part a writ plea filed by Balkonda MLA Vemula Prashanth Reddy alleging that district and revenue authorities unlawfully prevented him from distributing Kalyana Laxmi and Shadi Mubarak cheques to beneficiaries in his constituency. The petitioner contended that as per government orders issued in June and July 2016, elected representatives are tasked with implementing these schemes for weaker sections. He alleged that respondents planned to route cheque distribution through local ruling party leaders to gain political mileage ahead of local body elections, in violation of the prescribed guidelines. The petitioner sought directions to ensure timely distribution of cheques from the official MLA camp office and disciplinary action against the officials concerned. The judge directed the state to respond and posted the matter to August 17 for further hearing.

Status quo in Suryapet plot row

⁠Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court granted status quo for four weeks to enable the petitioner to avail remedies under law in a writ plea alleging illegal interference by municipal authorities in converting an open plot at R.K. Garden, Suryapet, into a park. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Singa Reddy Joseph Reddy, a resident of Suryapet. The petitioner claimed that he purchased the plot in 2006 through a registered sale deed from a private individual and alleged that the Suryapet municipality was trying to dispossess him on the pretext that the land was gifted to it for establishing a park. He argued that any such acquisition should follow the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with payment of compensation. Per contra, the municipality contended that the plot formed part of a DTCP-approved layout, was earmarked as open space, and was gifted to it in 2002. It also contended that it was in possession since then, constructed a compound wall, and was running a nursery on the site, claiming that the petitioner never enjoyed possession. The judge observed that the dispute involved several contested questions of fact and rival claims over ownership, which were unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings.