HC Allows Recovery Of Land Compensation From Temple
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court allowed the endowments department to recover land acquisition compensation in a temple land dispute. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, was dealing with a writ objection filed by the deputy commissioner endowment department. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Sama Suresh and others questioning the notification dated March 18, 2023 issued by the private collector land acquisition regarding recovery of compensation paid for land number 105/2 of Upperpally acquired by GHMC for public purposes. An amount of over ₹4.96 crore was awarded and distributed to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the trustees of Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, claimed the land and sought release of compensation in favor of the temple. A single judge noted that serious disputes existed regarding the title and classification of the land and observed that the writ plaintiffs had failed to establish clear title over the land for which compensation was awarded. The judge allowed the temple authorities to approach the Court of Endowments within six months for adjudication of the rights, and during the interregnum restrained the court from taking steps to recover these amounts from the private plaintiffs.
Opposing this, the donor department argued that there was no legal basis for continued protection against recovery after the writ court held that the petitioners had failed to establish their title and were not entitled to recover compensation. It was submitted that the compensation amount should be directed to be refunded to the temple. Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the dispute involved complex title issues requiring adjudication before the competent court and interim protection was justified pending such decision. The Board decided to temporarily suspend the implementation of the single judge’s decision and sent the matter for further consideration.
Child rape defendant objected to sentence
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court admitted the criminal plea challenging the conviction for alleged aggravated sexual assault of a five-year-old girl from the Scheduled Tribe community in Bhadradri Kothagudem district. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao, was dealing with the criminal appeal filed by Sayyad Lalu Lalmiya, who was convicted by Special Sessions Judge Bhadradri Kothagudem in connection with an offense registered at Chandrugonda police station. The prosecution alleged that on August 6, 2023, in Thippanapalli, the accused, a truck cleaner known to the victim’s family, allegedly took the child to a nearby vacant house with biscuits and committed the crime.
It was reported that the victim’s mother noticed the incident when she heard the child crying and filed a complaint the same night. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, her mother’s statement, neighbours’ confirmation, forensic reports detecting semen and spermatozoa on the victim’s clothes and swabs, DNA analysis linking biological material to the accused, medical evidence and caste certificates establishing the victim’s Scheduled Tribe status. The trial court found the accused guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (Pocso) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, sentenced to one year simple imprisonment in default and ordered to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the victim through the District Legal Services Authority. While accepting the objection, the bench referred the matter for further decision.
Lawyer seeks loan to continue case
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court filed a writ petition to advocate Balamukund Rao seeking financial and legal assistance to pursue the ongoing case before the Supreme Court. The judge was dealing with two interconnected writ petitions filed by Balamukund Rao and another. He claimed that despite an offer allegedly conveyed by the Attorney General’s Office, no order was accepted. He argued that financial assistance was necessary to cover his monthly medical expenses and make ends meet. During the hearing, Justice Tukaramji specifically questioned how a writ of mandamus could be maintained when no legal obligation was imposed on the respondents. The court observed that the petitioner must demonstrate an enforceable legal right and a corresponding public duty to the relevant authority. The petitioner pointed out that Article 226 gives wide discretionary powers to the Supreme Court. The state maintained that no formal application was processed by the legal department. It was stated that the financial assistance provided to lawyers does not fall under the direct administrative control of the ministry and that the social assistance foundation is an independent body governed by its own legal framework.
