The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Mallipeddi Madhusudhan Reddy seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of a case registered by the Medipally police of Hyderabad.
Hyderabad: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada of the Telangana High Court stayed further proceedings in a criminal case, holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and did not disclose any cognizable offence. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Mallipeddi Madhusudhan Reddy seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of a case registered by the Medipally police of Hyderabad. The criminal case was registered on the complaint of HYDRAA inspector Saidulu, alleging that the petitioner constructed a compound wall, blocked internal layout roads over an extent of about 6.14 acres, and encroached upon certain plots, thereby causing obstruction to alleged plot owners. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even if the allegations in the impugned FIR were taken at face value, they did not disclose the commission of any offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It was contended that the prosecution proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner encroached upon plots and blocked layout roads, whereas no approved layout existed, no land use conversion was affected, and the land continued to be recorded as agricultural patta land. Senior counsel argued that the FIR did not allege any dishonest, fraudulent, or malicious intention so as to attract offences such as cheating, wrongful restraint, or criminal trespass. It was argued that the criminal proceedings amounted to a colourable exercise of power intended to nullify binding civil court and revenue orders by invoking criminal jurisdiction, and that the police were impermissibly attempting to sit in appeal over civil and revenue proceedings. The judge stayed all further proceedings in the criminal case.
Kothagudem Civic Body Illegal: Plea
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the constitution of the Kothagudem Municipal Corporation by merging Kothagudem and Palvoncha municipalities along with seven gram panchayats located in Scheduled Areas. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Potru Praveen Kumar and another. The petitioners contended that the merger was carried out in violation of Schedule V of the Constitution and Article 243ZC(3), which mandates Parliamentary intervention for extension of Part IX-A of the Constitution to Scheduled Areas. It was argued that the Government Order issued on October 15, 2024, and the gazette notification dated April 15, 2025, effectively amended the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, by deleting seven Scheduled Area gram panchayats from Schedule-I and including them in Schedule-II, thereby treating them as urban areas without upgrading them into municipalities as required by law. The petitioners contended that the Scheduled Area gram panchayats were neither upgraded into municipalities nor lawfully included or excluded from the relevant schedules under the 2019 Act before being merged into the municipal corporation. According to them, no municipality can be constituted in Scheduled Areas unless Parliament extended Part IX-A of the Constitution to such areas. The panel granted the state a final opportunity to file its response and posted the matter for further hearing.
Plea Challenges GHMC Cancellation of Building Permit
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the proposed cancellation of building permission granted by the GHMC. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Srinivas Reddy, questioning the proceedings initiated by the GHMC commissioner seeking cancellation and revocation of the building permission granted to him. The petitioner sought suspension of the impugned proceedings, contending that the action of the GHMC was illegal and without authority of law. Opposing the plea, standing counsel for the GHMC submitted that no revocation orders were passed as on date and that the writ plea was premature. It was contended that the GHMC did not initiate any steps for demolition of the subject structure. During the hearing, a third party sought to intervene and requested the judge to restrain occupation of the building until further orders. The judge disapproved of the submission, observing that a third party could not dictate issues relating to occupation of a building and that the structure cannot be directed to remain unoccupied unless specific instructions are issued by the GHMC itself. The judge directed the GHMC to obtain instructions in the matter.
