Telangana Contests Ownership of 383-Acre Maheswaram Forest Land

Hyderabad: The Chief Public Prosecutor on Wednesday argued that an attempt was made to siphon off nearly 383 acres of forest land in Maheswaram Village in Ranga Reddy district, based on a file in the government files, which does not have a legal title. He defended the state’s objection against the single judge’s decision.

In the earlier proceedings, the petitioner, who claimed to be joint Munthakab owners (Muslims) of the land in question acquired through inheritance from their ancestors, submitted that the petitioners were the owners and patta holders of the land; The Forest Department had been holding the same land for over 50 years with an offer to acquire the same land, but the respondents were not taking any steps to issue a fresh notification for land acquisition.

Counsel for the petitioner stated that the land of the petitioners was a part of the excess land and therefore the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation and submitted that the action of the forest authorities in rejecting the demand petition of the petitioners was arbitrary and illegal and was in complete contradiction with the stand taken by the authorities in the earlier writ petitions. He further submitted that the income records also show the title of the petitioners.

In response, the state argued that the revenue records for 1929 and Sethwar showed the land in question as “Poramboke Kancha” (government land) and “Mahasura Forest” (forest land) and the revenue records in favor of the petitioners were fake and therefore did not grant any title. The state argued that even if the land is deemed to belong to the petitioners, it would constitute part of their “surplus land” under the land reform laws and should be treated as state land for which compensation is not payable as it is in the possession of the forest department.

Observing that unlike the entries in the revenue records, the state had not provided any justification for classifying the land as Poramboke land, the single judge held that the entries in the revenue records were conclusive evidence of title to the relevant lands and the state had failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the contrary except the Sethwar copy in which it was alleged that the land in question was recorded as forest land. Since the notification issued in 1999 has expired, the same cannot be said to be “Poramboke Kancha” (government land). In the appeal, the Attorney General argued that the revenue records relied upon by the respondents did not yield any title in accordance with established principles of law.

The bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar heard the appeal inconclusively and posted the appeal to April 7 for the successful writ petitioner to justify the single judge’s decision.

HC approves Fino CEO’s GST arrest

The Telangana High Court held that the arrest of a person can be counted from the moment the tax authorities enter the premises of the assessee, but only from the moment of actual arrest. A two-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice dismissed a writ petition challenging the arrest of the CEO of Fino Payments Bank Limited in a major GST evasion case involving alleged transactions worth around Rs 3,000 billion and tax evasion of around Rs 840 billion.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, was dealing with a court petition challenging the legality of the arrest of Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta on February 27 by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence in connection with offenses under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He also challenged the arrest warrant issued by the Hyderabad Special Court for Economic Offenses and sought bail.

The petitioner’s case was that authorities entered his office building on February 26, restricted his movement, and recorded his statement throughout the night before formally arresting him in the early hours of February 27. The applicant argued that this amounted to unlawful detention beyond the 24-hour period permitted under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The Union of India has opposed the plea, arguing that several summonses and notices seeking data on suspected GST evasion have been issued by certain entities linked to online gaming platforms. It was stated that the petitioner was uncooperative and gave evasive answers, which led to search operations and subsequent arrest based on material collected during the investigation.

The court noted that the search was completed in the early morning hours of February 27 and the arrest was recorded at 05.50 the same day. The court further observed that the petitioner was produced before the judicial magistrate in Mumbai at 8.30 pm within the constitutionally prescribed period of 24 hours. Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he was in custody from the moment the officers entered the building, the Court held that the officers’ presence pursuant to a valid search warrant and subpoena did not amount to an arrest. It was determined that the arrest was supported by material and constitutional guarantees were not violated, and the petition for writ was rejected.

Objection to ragtag in medical college in HC

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Monday admitted a writ petition alleging harassment, harassment and academic discrimination against a post-graduate medical student at Kakatiya Medical College, affiliated to Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences.

Judge, Faculty of Medicine (Microbiology) student Dr. Aiely was listening to Akhil defend a writ alleging that he was subjected to constant discrimination and harassment by university officials, including body shaming by the Head of Department. He also claimed that his academic progress, particularly his thesis presentation, District Residency Program (DRP) posting, attendance and salary, were negatively affected.

On the other hand, the respondents opposed the defense, arguing that the petitioner has been absent since September 2024, is irregular and frequently late for classes, and is trying to invoke ragtag allegations to justify academic non-compliance. The petitioner stated that he regularly marked attendance through the online system and was never notified of any alleged absences.

He further submitted that though a representation was made to the respondent authorities on March 16, no action was taken to make the inaction arbitrary in violation of the Prohibition of Sedition Rules, 2002 of the State of Telangana and the Prevention of Sedition Regulations of the NMC. The petitioner also sought an interim direction from the respondents to postpone or extend the Thesis Submission Notification issued by the authorities, including thesis/research thesis submission, DRP submission, attendance updates and salary related matters, pending consideration of its representation. Taking into account the opponents’ arguments, the judge directed the defendant authorities to submit their responses on the matter and sent the case for further hearing.

The case filed against the defendant’s family was overturned

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed the criminal case filed against the family members of the accused in an infidelity and sexual abuse case and ruled that continuation of the case against them would amount to abuse of legal process. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition seeking to quash pending cases filed by Chittibola Bharadwaj Sharma and three others before a trial court in Medchal-Malkajgiri district.

The petitioners falsely alleged that they were implicated in the crime merely by virtue of their association with the main accused against whom the underlying allegations were made. The prosecution alleged that the actual complainant was induced into a relationship by the main accused with the promise of marriage, during which he received money, gold jewelery and important documents from her. He also allegedly later refused to marry her and sexually assaulted her.

However, it was submitted that the allegations against the petitioners, who are family members, were vague and there was no special role attributed to them. After perusing the complaint and the charge sheet, the Judge found that the entire dispute arose from the personal relationship between the petitioner and accused No. 1 and that there was no concrete evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged crimes.

The judge also observed that in the absence of clear and specific allegations of active involvement, family unity alone could not be a basis for prosecuting individuals. Based on established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the judge observed that vague and multifaceted allegations against family members cannot survive criminal prosecution without corroborating material. It also concluded that the essential elements of fraud were not alleged against the petitioners. Accordingly, the judge quashed the case against the family members of the main defendant, granting them relief, and left the case against the main defendant to continue in accordance with the law.