Telangana HC Admits Plea On Kukatpally Auction
Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation bench of the Telangana High Court admitted the writ plea challenging the interim order allowing the Telangana Housing Board to proceed with the e-auction of a land parcel in KPHB Colony in Kukatpally. The panel, comprising Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by BSR Infra, a registered partnership firm. The appellant had earlier objected to the e-auction notification issued by the Housing Board on May 7 in respect of Plot No. 2 measuring 2,420 square meters in KPHB Colony. In the impugned decision, the single judge refused to postpone the e-auction bidding scheduled for 29 May; He observed that a decision to remain at this stage could deprive authorities of the opportunity to secure a fair market price for public property and could also result in potential loss to public finances. The court allowed the auction to continue without conclusion and clarified that any steps taken pursuant to the auction would depend on the final outcome of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the refusal to suspend the auction proceedings, the appellant chose to file a written objection before the holiday board seeking to intervene in the interim order and direct the Housing Board not to proceed with the auction. The bench observed that the appellant was protected by the order passed by the single judge as the auction proceedings depended on the outcome of the writ petition and directed the respondents to file their replies in the matter.
No stay in Mulugu sand extraction
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, rejected the interim suspension of permissions for large-scale sand extraction and desilting works in Mulugu district despite alleged violations of environmental and tribal rights laws. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Komuram Ram Murthy and others. The petitioners challenged the case issued in April 2026, which allowed extraction of around 1.45 crore metric tonnes of sand and allocation of desilting works, including Ramanakkapeta, Wadagudem and Akinepally Mallaram in Mulugu district. It was alleged that the mandatory gram sabha consultations were not held properly as required under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The petitioners alleged that the authorities failed to comply with Telangana sand mining rules, environmental safeguards and provisions of the WALTA Act before granting permissions. The petitioners’ lawyer argued that if immediate protection is not provided, approximately one billion cubic meters of sand will be removed before the legality of the permits is reviewed by the court. After hearing the parties and taking into account the urgency requested, the judge directed the state to file a counterclaim and remanded the matter to the reopening day after the summer recess. The judge observed that if the state failed to register its meter, appropriate orders would be issued.
HC explains what constitutes rape in consensual intercourse
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court held that in the absence of prima facie evidence to show that the promise of marriage was fraudulent from the outset, a consensual intercourse between two adults would not constitute the crime of rape merely because the intercourse subsequently resulted in repudiation of marriage. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Thamburchi Manohar challenging the order of Additional District and Sessions Judge Gadwal rejecting his discharge application in a sessions case registered under the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the accused established physical intimacy with the actual complainant on the assurance of marriage and then refused to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the relationship continued between 2017 and 2020. The petitioner argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that there was no evidence to establish that the alleged promise of marriage was initially fraudulent or fraudulent, attracting the alleged crimes. Reviewing the complaint, statements recorded during the investigation, call data recordings and other charging documents, the judge observed that the relationship had continued for a significant period of time and that both parties were adults and were in regular contact. The judge observed that there was no concrete evidence to show that the alleged marriage promise was a lie from the beginning. The Supreme Court, based on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, reiterated that breach of promise to marry does not by itself amount to rape unless consent is obtained on the basis of a false promise made without any intention to fulfill from the outset. Deciding that the essential elements of the alleged crimes were not prima facie established, the court accepted the penalty petition, annulled the decision to reject the request for release, and canceled all further proceedings in the session case.
