Telangana HC pulls up Bhoodan board for failing to furnish land details
While hearing multiple writ petitions pertaining to alleged irregularities in the sale and mutation of Bhoodan lands, the judge directly addressed Kiran Kumar Gattu, standing counsel for the Bhoodan Yagna Board, and questioned the board's commitment to its statutory responsibilities.
'Is it not your duty to protect the Bhoodan lands, not only at Nagaram village, Maheshwaram mandal, RR district, but also in the entire state of Telangana? You have not even furnished one square foot of information pertaining to the Bhoodan lands,' Justice Lakshman observed.
In response, standing counsel submitted that the relevant information was available with the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). The judge then directed him to obtain the required data from the CCLA and submit a comprehensive report to the court.
The court specifically sought details under three key heads: Lands received by the Bhoodan Yagna Board from donors; extent of Bhoodan lands distributed to needy peasants and farmers and the remaining lands still with the Bhoodan Yagna Board across Telangana.
Meanwhile, senior advocate P Sriraghu Ram, appearing on behalf of a land purchaser, opposed the plea filed by petitioner Vadthya Ramulu, who sought the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry by the state government. He argued that a private individual could not seek a judicial direction for such an appointment.
However, T Rajnikanth Reddy, additional advocate general of Telangana, informed the court that the state government is willing to constitute an inquiry commission to investigate allegations of illegal mutation and alienation of Bhoodan lands, particularly in survey No: 194 and 195 of Nagaram village, provided the court issues the necessary directions.
The matter pertains to a writ petition filed by Vadthya Ramulu, a resident of Padmavati Colony, RR district, and two similar petitions filed by Birla Mallesh, alleging that Bhoodan lands were sold illegally to private parties in collusion with revenue officials, and even mutated in the names of senior IAS and IPS officers.
After hearing arguments from all sides, Justice Lakshman adjourned the matter to Thursday for further hearing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Political speeches are often exaggerated': Telangana HC quashes criminal defamation against CM Revanth Reddy
The Telangana High Court Friday quashed a criminal defamation case against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. The case stems from remarks made by the CM against the BJP during the Lok Sabha election campaign at Kothagudem in May 2024. On Friday, the Bench of Justice Lakshman allowed the petition filed by Reddy to quash the proceedings against him in the case pending trial before a Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) for Excise cases (designated MP-MLA court) in Hyderabad. He was booked under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 125 (promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election) of the Representation of the People Act. The complainant, Telangana BJP unit represented by its General Secretary Kasam Venkateshwarlu, contended that the statements, such as 'the BJP, if voted to power, would change the Constitution and abolish reservations to SC/ST and BC communities', were part of a 'fake and dubious political narrative' to confuse voters and promote enmity between communities. The BJP alleged that the speech lowered the party's reputation and caused damage during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Special JFCM for excise cases in August 2024 had issued a summons to Revanth Reddy, asking him to appear personally before it. Subsequently, the chief minister approached the high court challenging the complaint and seeking to stay the proceedings initiated against him. The high court had earlier granted him an exemption from personal appearance before the trial court. The petitioner's counsel, T Niranjan Reddy, informed the court that political speeches should not be the subject of defamation, 'as elections inherently involve parties seeking to lower each other's reputation.' He said the 'alleged speech is a routine activity of a political leader to criticise the opposition and is not defamation,' and that such speeches are protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner, among other allegations, argued that the complaint was filed with a political vendetta to harass the petitioner and constitutes an abuse of the legal process. On his part, the counsel for the respondent, Devineni Vijay Kumar, argued that the statements created mistrust and fear among voters, bringing disrepute to the BJP. After hearing both sides, the court rejected the contention of the petitioner that political parties do not enjoy reputation and cannot maintain a complaint for criminal defamation. The court also found neither the complainant (BJP Telangana) nor its representative, Kasam Venkateshwarlu, was authorised by the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party to file the complaint. Refraining from discussing the contents of the alleged speech and the issue of its defamatory nature, the court noted, 'Political speeches are often exaggerated. To allege that such speeches are defamatory is another exaggeration.' 'It is trite law that, power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, where the initiation of criminal proceedings suffers from material defects or where such criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, the inherent powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings,' the court stated in the order.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Stray dogs, cows major threat to road safety: HC
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance based on media reports regarding the increasing incidents and deteriorating road and public safety conditions in the state due to stray dogs and other animals. The court directed the govt, municipal corporations, and all responsible agencies, including the surface transport ministry, NHAI, and UDH, to take immediate action. The court acknowledged that stray dogs and cows have become a major threat to road safety not only in cities but also on state and national highways. This poses a danger to public lives and has led to serious accidents. Taking dog bite cases as a basis, the division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chiraniya registered a suo motu case and issued notices to the departments of road transport, urban development, local bodies, and municipal corporations of Jodhpur, Jaipur, and Udaipur, among others. The next hearing is scheduled for August 11. The state govt informed the court that the "Rajasthan Road Safety Bill, 2022" was drafted with special provisions to prevent road accidents and control stray animals. On this submission, the court asked whether this bill has been enacted into law or not and directed that the status must be clarified in the next hearing. Taking into account the growing incidences of dog bites, the court stated that these figures highlight the severity of the problem and acknowledged that the actual number of incidents is likely even higher, as many cases go unreported. The court appointed senior advocate Sachin Acharya and advocates Priyanka Borana and Heli Pathak as amicus curiae in this matter. They have been directed to conduct a detailed study and assist the court accordingly.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC upholds tribal woman's right to ancestral land
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favour of Manni Devi, a woman from the Meena Scheduled Tribe community, affirming her right to ancestral land and striking down an earlier order that denied her claim solely on the basis of her tribal status. The case centred around a property dispute after Manni Devi challenged a 2018 gift deed executed by her father in favour of another family member. Her earlier civil suit was dismissed on technical grounds, prompting her to seek khatedari rights in the revenue court. However, the Board of Revenue rejected her claim in June 2025, citing Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application unless notified by the Central Govt. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand overturned the Board's decision Thursday, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, including Tirth Kumar v. Dadu Ram and Ram Charan v. Sukhram, which held that denying property rights to tribal daughters violates their constitutional right to equality. The court emphasised that gender-based discrimination, even under the guise of customary or statutory exclusion, cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it better to shower in the morning or at night? Here's what a microbiologist says CNA Read More Undo The judgment strongly urged the Union Govt to amend the Hindu Succession Act and extend equal property rights to tribal women, calling the existing legal exclusion "manifestly unjustified" after 70 years of independence. Justice Dhand directed the sub-divisional officer in Chaksu to resume proceedings in Manni Devi's suit and adjudicate the matter on its merits without delay. TNN
