Telangana High Court Reserves Verdict on Nala Act Validity

Hyderabad: A five-judge bench of the Telangana High Court reserved the verdict on the validity of provisions under the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Tax Act. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice P. Sam Koshy, Justice K. Lakshman, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy and Justice Tukaramji was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging the provisions of the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963, and the amendment made to the Schedule of the said NALA Act vide amendment Act 8 of 1994, which was brought into force retrospectively from July 1, 1993, and to declare the same as ultra vires and unconstitutional. Under the Act, taxation is envisaged in different slabs, such as industrial, commercial and non-agricultural. Dealing with the batch of cases, senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar pointed out that the action of the government, including the entire land of industry even if the land is not put to industrial use, was illegal. In an earlier order, by the court, the legislative competence of the state government was also under challenge; the apex court upheld the legislative competence of the state legislature but remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh reconsideration on the incidence and quantum of tax. In a special sitting in a post-lunch session on Wednesday, the panel heard the petitioners and state advocate general and reserved its verdict.

Waqf panel for Siddipet Idgah suspended

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court suspended the proceedings of the CEO of the state Wakf Board constituting an ad hoc committee for conduct of Id-ul-Fitr prayers at the Siddipet Idgah. The court faulted the appointment of the committee as being completely at the behest of the Ex-MLC, Farooq Hussain. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Tanzeem-Ul-Masajid, Siddipet, and its general secretary Mohammed Ubed Ur Rahman. The petitioners questioned the proceedings dated February 27, 2026, issued by the second respondent, contending that the order constituting the committee rested solely on a representation made by former MLC Farooq Hussain. They argued that under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Board must itself arrive at satisfaction that it is necessary to establish a committee either generally, for any particular purpose, or for any area for supervision of waqfs, and that such power could not be exercised on the recommendation of a former legislator. Counsel for private respondents, the ad hoc committee members, opposed the plea and contended that the petitioner society was not in existence. In support, they placed reliance on proceedings of the Registrar of Societies dissolving the society. Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the impugned order dated February 27, 2026, was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference, also referring to repeal of the earlier statute. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, the judge noted that the proceedings were issued on the basis of a representation by Farooq Hussain, former MLC, who suggested nine names for the purpose of the ad hoc committee and requested the Board to constitute the panel. The judge further noted that the very same names were thereafter published as the committee for conduct of prayers on the occasion of Id-ul-Fitr. Justice Nanda observed that justice should not only be done but must also manifestly seem to be done. The judge opined that the very constitution of the committee indicated that the proceedings were intended to favour the former MLC and that this destroyed the credibility of the impugned order. Taking note of the rival submissions, the judge found that the petitioners made out a prima facie case for interim relief. The judge accordingly suspended the proceedings dated February 27, 2026. The Waqf Board was directed to take over the Siddipet Idgah for the limited purpose of conduct of Id prayers, only to ensure that the prayers are conducted peacefully and without disturbance by either the petitioners or respondents.