The Telangana High court on Monday Setaside the single judge order on the ground that a title dispute cannot be decided under article 226.
Published Date – 8 April 2024, 11:13 PM
File Photo
Hyderabad:
1. Justice N.V Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday asked Senior Counsels to suggest the name of a scholar or a mutt to solve the issue pertaining to Ram Navami celestial wedding at the Bhadracahmal Temple.
The Judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by GTV Manindhar, Kancherla Venkata Ramana and others challenging the middling in the spiritual and ritual issues pertaining to conduct of pooja to Lord Sree Seeta Ramachandra Swamy temple of Bhadrachalam.
Senior counsels D.V. Sitharam Murthy and Hariharan representing the petitioners contended that the celestial wedding is visited by multiple religious irregularities governed sharply by changes made in the last 10 years.
The counsels pointed out that reference to the gowtra cannot be otherwise than those mentioned in Ramayana. It would be travesty of religious belief to conduct the celestial marriage with the gotra and pravara of Lord Vishnu and Lordess Laxmi, the counsels said. Arguing for the implead petitioner K.E. Sthalasai, Senior Counsel L. Ravichander highlighted that the entire controversy was a needless introduction of a dichotomy between Lord Rama and Lord Vishnu “This is unheard of in Sanatana Dharma”.
Marriages are performed in various methods by different communities and states within the broad umbrella of Sanatana Dharma the counsel said. The counsel, also contended there is no proof of how it was traditionally done, apart from mere allegations of change in gotra and pravara. The burden of proving the change is cast on the petitioners.
Invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court on the question of gotra and pravara of the God is misconceived and the court should be guarded in exercising its jurisdiction in such matters, the counsel highlighted. The Judge said the Senior Counsels to examine the possibility of referring the matter to an expert and posted the matter to Wednesday.
2. Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court on Monday took up for hearing a quash petition filed by the ‘Hyderabad Cinephiles’ organisation members Anand Singh, Sreeja and one Parag Verma which challenged the FIR filed against them by the Neredmet police for offences of public nuisance and malicious act intending to outrage religious feelings.
The case of the Petitioners is that Anand and Sreeja have organised screening of the movie ‘Ram Ke Naam’ at Marley Joint Bistro, Neredmet and that Parag is a participant. While the screening was about to start on January 20, one P Ruthvik and his associates interrupted the screening stating that the film is against Vishwa Hindu Parishad and hurts Hindu Religious sentiments. It may be recalled that Anand Partwardhans documentary ‘Ram Ke Naam’ was given CBFC certification in the year 1992 and it thereafter received many national and international awards. Petitioners would state that, Bombay High Court has held that “The filmmaker has made a serious attempt to examine the Babri Masjid dispute from a secularist angle with the basic object to convey a message of communal harmony and amity”.
Petitioners also raised contention that, instead of raising a case against those who threatened the organisers, participants and interrupted a screening of a thoughtful documentary which promotes communal harmony, the police registered case against the petitioners under pressure and influence of the gathering called by the Complainant.
It is stated that, film screenings are organised by Hyderabad Cinephiles with an aim to lay foundation for a people’s cine movement in India through pro-people cinema across the globe and as part of it many thoughtful movies are screened publicly till now. Petitioners accordingly sought quash of the criminal case filed against them for screening a certified movie.
However, the office of the public prosecutor has informed court that chargesheet is filed in the case and that chargesheet has to be challenged. Senior Counsel, L Ravichander representing the onrecord counsel S. Goutham sought court permission for taking necessary steps to challenge the chargesheet and the court conceded for the same.
3. The same Judge on Monday reserved for orders the quash petition field by the Kothapally Mahesh and 4 other students of TVV (Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika) organisation. Petitioners challenged the criminal case lodged against them in the year 2019 for conducting and participating in a dharna against the arrest of Vara Vara Rao and Prof GN Saibaba.
The Saifabad police registered crime alleging offences of unlawful assembly, public nuisance, wrongful restraint and obstruction of public functions by officials. Petitioner Counsel, T.Rahul argued that, protest cannot be called to be unlawful assembly and also that right to protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Pointing out to the allegations raised, he contended that no criminal force was used by the students to attract said offences of public nuisance, wrongful restraint and obstruction of public functions. Petitioner counsel further argued that, false cases were filed by the police against the students for exercising their fundamental rights.
However, the office of the public prosecutor sought rejection of the petition stating that the matter requires trial. Hearing both sides the judge reserved the case for orders.
4. Justice K Lakshman of Telangana High Court on Monday heard the arguments and reserved two bail applications filed by YS Bhasker Reddy(A7) and Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy(A6), who are accused in the sensational murder case of YS Vivekananda Reddy, former MP of Andhra Pradesh.
It may be recalled that Shiva Shankar Reddy (A5) was granted bail recently.
The petitioners filed bail applications on different grounds apart from various other grounds A7 pleaded bail on medical grounds. Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy representing petitioners contended that Bhaskar Reddy suffers from abnormal heart beat and he has undergone cataract surgery recently and also has other age-old ailments.
On the other hand, special public prosecutor of CBI contended that the bail applications are not maintainable as there are specific and serious allegations against the accused persons. That approver Dasthagiri has made statements against the accused persons revealing their involvement in the conspiracy leading to murder.
That only after grant of bail to Shiva Shankar Reddy, medical reports were furnished pertaining to A7. Senior counsel Nalin kumar appearing on behalf of counsel on record T.
Swtcha representing YS Sunitha informed the court that SLP is filed before Supreme court challenging the bail order of Shiva Shankar Reddy. The senior counsel contended that the petitioners cannot seek parity with A5(Shiva Shankar Reddy) and A8 (Avinash Reddy) as there are individual overacts against the petitioners. If there is a conflict between choosing fair trail and rights of accused under article 21 the right to free trail weighs more as the crime is against the society, the Senior Counsel said. The judge after a lengthy hearing reserved the matter for orders.
5. The Telangana High court on Monday Setaside the single judge order on the ground that a title dispute cannot be decided under article 226.
The division bench comprising chief justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti were dealing with batch of writ appeals filed by Jaihind Greenfields LLP, in a matter pertaining to land admeasuring 460 Acres, situated at Vattinagunaapally village. It is the case of the appelants that 72 writ petitions were filed seeking electricity connection in their alleged residential plot before the single Judge.
The appellants One M/s Jai Hind Greenfields LLP and Mr. Jai Hind Reddy filed Implead petitions who are the absolute owners of more than 200 Acres of Land which was purchased directly from the Original Pattedars. Senior counsel J Prabhakar appearing for counsel on record Kunal Kakkad contended that the said Implead Petitioners purchased the Agricultural land of more than 200 acres by way of registered sale deeds.
The learned Single judge allowed the 72 Writ Petitions and dismissed the Implead Applications, the senior counsel said. Whereas, senior counsel P. Raghuram appearing for counsel on record B Mohan in second writ appeal challenging the Single judge order contended that the Writ petitioners rely on sale deeds executed by an Alleged GPA holder by way of Irrevocable GPA allegedly executed by Original Pattedars in the year 1986 in favour of Writ Petitioners.
The senior counsel also argued that the said land is covered by 111 G.O.Ms. is an agricultural land and as per the records of HMDA Narsingi there are no layouts approved. The learned Single judge in its order has held that the Sale Deeds executed by G.P.A. holder by virtue of Irrevocable GPA is prior and valid hence the Writ Petitioners are proper title holders, the counsel said. The counsel for respondent contended that they are the absolute owners and they are only requesting to provide electricity connections and not to decide any title.
After hearing the rival contentions of both sides, the bench held that the court is not empowered under Article 226 in deciding the title and accordingly setaside the order as it is contrary to the law laid down by Supreme court in Sohanlal vs Union of India. However, the court directed the parties to approach concerned regulatory body for electricity connection.
