Resumption of Tribal Lands Upheld by High Court
Haydarabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka from the TaLangana Supreme Court gave up a group of writers who challenged the resumption of the land in the planned area of Chunchupalli village, Kothagudem mandal by the government. The judge was dealing with the written satisfaction opened by Ravi Chandra Bejjaram and others, trying to overthrow a government decision given by the State Tribal Welfare Department and later a Panchanama. The petition holders claimed a land ownership of 2.23 acres through an indifferent sales deed of 1969, which was purchased from a non -Tribal Pattadar, claiming that the land was constantly being kept and raised since then. However, the judge found significant procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the account of the petition. The judge observed that the alleged transaction has occurred after the entry into force of planned areas of 1970 areas, which explicitly prohibited the transfer of the planned areas among non -tribal areas in planned areas. In addition, the dominant official records, a member of the tribal community in the lamp Bhukya Hari Singh’e founded the legal pattadar land, he said. Witnesses and certified income documents have found inconsistent with official records by overlooking the originality of the alleged 1969 sales deed. The judge stressed that the ban on land transfers between non -tribal land transfers is a protective measure aimed at preventing the use of tribal communities and protecting the land rights of their ancestors for future generations.
Road flooring on PVT property was questioned
Justice B. Vijaysen, Reddy of the Supreme Court of TaLangana, GHMC’nin purchasing or compensation without a private property to open and expand a way to open a way to open a way to open. The judge felt a writing opened by B. Ashok, a businessman claiming that the participants were trying to intervene in his land in Chandanagar. No notification of the petition is not issued, no purchasing has been initiated and no compensation has not been paid, but the authorities continue to leave a way to violate the Constitution. The judge directed GHMC’s standing lawyer to receive instructions.
Bail accused in Piracy Case
Justice K. Sujana of the Supreme Court of TaLangana raised a defendant with bail in a piracy case. According to the prosecutor’s Office, Telugu filmmakers’ video Anti-Video Piracy Cell, Hit: third Case and #single, including newly broadcast Telugu films, a complaint claiming large-scale online piracy. The petition owner Sudhakaran, other defendants, with the films registered in theaters, 1Tamilmv.com websites such as pirated copies of the pirate copies and by taking payments through crypto currency channels were claimed to distribute through telegraph and proton mail. The prosecution claimed that this piracy caused major losses in the sector, which was estimated to be 3,700 RS in 2024, and that the petition confessed to uploading more than 35 films. The petition lawyer claimed that he was incorrectly associated and that most of the alleged crimes could be sentenced to less than seven years of imprisonment. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the important investigation has already been completed because 33 witnesses have been examined and detained. Additional public prosecutor referred to the seriousness and investigation of crimes and said that the petition was detained since August 13 and the financial investigation was already completed. Accordingly, the judge gave conditional bail to the defendants.
