Won’t Set Up Probe Panel on Nagaram, TG Tells HC

Hyderabad: The state government informed the High Court that it would not appoint an enquiry commission over the land in Survey No. 194 and 195 at Nagaram of Maheshwaram mandal, in which the IAS and IPS officers had purchased around 28 acres of land. This marks a new turn in the controversy over the Bhoodan and government land in Survey Nos. 181, 194 and 195 at Nagaram.

On behalf of the government, Additional Advocate General Tera Rajanikanth Reddy informed the court that the state was not interested in appointing an enquiry commission as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952.

Petitioners alleged that some extent of the land in these two survey numbers was government land or gairan land, whereas the government stated that it was an issue between two private parties and the public interest was not involved.

Apart from that, the Telangana High Court pulled up petitioner Birla Mallesh, who filed two writs before the High Court complaining that IAS and IPS officers had fraudulently purchased land in the survey numbers by “managing” revenue authorities.

Justice K. Lakshman questioned the locus of the petitioner in filing the writ petitions seeking a CBI and ED probe into the issue. The court posed a series of questions over the filing of the writ petitions and grilled petitioner Mallesh on his writing to the Prime Minister, the Governor, the Chief Minister and others in a revenue matter which was to be dealt with by the revenue authorities.

The court observed that these matters should not be kept pending for a long time and it will be disposed of as early as possible. Adjourning the matter to July 29, the court told petitioner Mallesh and another petitioner, V. Ramulu, who sought the enquiry commission, to come with all details by Tuesday, including how they had acquired the properties in the survey numbers.

Meanwhile, the Bhoodan Yagna Board submitted to the High Court that only around 42 acres of land in Survey No. 181 was Bhoodan land and that it had nothing to do with other parcels of land, consisting totally around 700 acres, in Survey Nos. 181, 182, 194 and 195 of Nagaram.

A complainant by one Dastagiri Sharif stated that the entire extent of land belonged to one person. After retaining 103 acres in the three survey numbers, some extent of land was donated to the Bhoodan Board and other parcels handed over to the government as surplus land. The respondents claimed that before the enforcement of the Ceiling Act, the owner had sold the land.

The court directed counsel representing the Bhoodan Board to furnish the details of land in various survey numbers in the state which was Bhoodan land by Tuesday. Counsel informed the court that out of 1.4 lakh acres donated to the Bhoodan Board, around 40,000 acres were distributed to the landless poor but they had created third-party rights.

The judge made it clear that the court would decide on the aspect of maintainability of these three writ petitions filed by Birla Mallesh and Ramulu at the first instance. The judge also asked them to first prove their locus in filing the writ petitions and how they wanted to get the Enforcement Directorate into the issue and how they could ask for a probe under Section 3 of the Enquiry Commission Act.

TG HC Gets Four Additional Judges

Hyderabad: The Centre on Monday issued a notification appointing advocates Gouse Meera Mohiuddin, Chalapathi Rao Suddala, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy and Gadi Praveen Kumar as additional judges of the Telangana High Court.

Recently, the Supreme Court collegium had sent its recommendations to appoint the advocates as judges of the Telangana High Court, to the President of India through the Union government. Following the President's approval, the Centre issued notifications on their appointment.

Pranay Kumar Honour Killing: HC Clarifies Evidence Use Against Convict

Hyderabad: In the honour killing case of Dalit youth Pranay Kumar at Miryalaguda of Nalgonda district in 2018, the Telangana High Court directed the trial court to take only admissible evidence against one of the convicts, Thirunagaru Sravan Kumar. He had approached the High Court in 2024, alleging that the trial court had accepted the statement of the prosecution witnesses as a whole, which was not admissible.

According to Sravan Kumar, the evidence in the form of panchnama was that the accused stated before the panch witnesses to the effect that “I will show you the weapon used in the commission of offence.” To the statement, the words “with which I stabbed” were added; these words were inadmissible, he said.

The court directed the trial court to consider the statement of prosecution witness-17 to the extent admissible as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the remaining could not be considered.