Telangana High Court issues notice to Rangareddy district collector in contempt case
The petitioner alleged that, despite the court's stay order, the respondents continued illegal construction activity on the property. Photographic evidence submitted to the court reportedly shows ongoing compound wall construction at the site. Taking serious note of the alleged non-compliance, Justice Reddy directed the District Collector to investigate the matter immediately and report the current status of the land.
The contempt proceedings stem from a broader writ petition filed by Birla Mallesh, who accused senior IAS and IPS officers from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh of colluding with revenue and registration officials to fraudulently transfer the land. The petitioner alleged that this was done using forged documents and manipulated revenue records.
He claimed that his family had been cultivating the land peacefully for over five decades, but it was later falsely shown as part of Survey No. 194 to facilitate illegal transfers.
Serious allegations were also made regarding the misuse of the Dharani digital land portal and the improper issuance of 13-B certificates to legitimize fraudulent transactions, commonly referred to as 'Saida Bainama.' The petitioner stated that despite filing multiple complaints since November 2024, authorities ignored the issue and instead harassed him with legal threats and defamation notices.
Justice Reddy remarked that land meant for the poor was being usurped by the powerful, calling it 'a case of the fence eating the crop.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Undressing woman for sexual assault amounts to attempt to rape: Allahabad HC
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that undressing a woman in a bid to rape her amounts to the offence of attempt to rape under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. (REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) Justice Rajnish Kumar passed the judgment on July 1, rejecting an appeal filed by a convict in the offence of attempt to rape a victim. Since the case is from 2004, it was decided as per IPC and now the appeal has been adjudicated by the high court. Also Read | Kolkata gang rape: Crime scene reconstruction done over 4 hours as accused taken to law college In this case, one Pradeep Kumar in 2004 had forcibly abducted the victim and kept her confined to a house for nearly 20 days. Later, he had attempted to rape her by undressing her. He was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The convict had filed an appeal against the verdict but the high court upheld the decision of the trial court. The prosecution had alleged that the accused Pradeep Kumar forcibly took the victim in a van, confined her to a relative's house for about 20 days and during that time, he undressed her and attempted to sexually assault her. However, he failed to commit the offence of rape due to her resistance, the prosecution added. The court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. Also Read | Pune techie's rape accused was her friend; she took selfie, typed threat: Police 'He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate in her evidence during trial also,' the court observed. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments in which it was held that the removal of the victim's clothes by the accused constitutes an attempt to rape. Also Read | 'Forced to undergo sex change' by friend, man alleges rape, extortion, 'black magic' in MP It also dismissed the appellant's contention that the delay in filing the complaint weakened the prosecution's case, noting that the delay had been adequately explained. The high court further rejected the argument that the accused was falsely implicated due to enmity, stating that the appellant had failed to substantiate this claim.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Mathura: HC rejects plea to refer ‘Shahi Idgah' as ‘disputed structure'
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition that sought to replace the term 'Shahi Idgah Masjid' with 'disputed structure' in all future court proceedings in the ongoing cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute. The plea filed with prayer to direct the stenographer concerned to use the word 'disputed structure' in place of 'Shahi Idgah Mosque' in all further proceedings of the original suit and other related cases was supported with the affidavit of advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh who is plaintiff number 5. The prayer was opposed by the Muslim side, the court noted. 'A bare perusal of the pleading of the parties in the suit reveals that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the site where Shahi Masjid Idgah is existing. Parties have claimed their respective title over suit property. Therefore, it may be termed as property in dispute 15. In pleadings of the parties also, the structure in question is referred as Shahi Masjid Idgah and at this stage where hearing of the suits is yet to commence and even issues have not been framed, it is neither desirable nor expedient to issue any direction to stenographer, as prayed by the applicants, to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah in judgments and orders as 'disputed structure',' stated the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, in its order. 'There is no dispute with regard to identity of property in suit, therefore, the prayer made in the application A-44 cannot be granted at this stage. The Court in its direction may refer to the property in dispute by appropriate words in further proceedings. application A- 44 is dismissed with above observations,' the bench added. The court also said the applicant (plaintiff number 5) had submitted that the Shahi Idgah mosque was constructed on the exact site historically recognised as the original birthplace of Lord Krishna, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that there is no provision that allows the plaintiff to dictate a stenographer of the court to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah as a 'disputed property', especially when such words are an attempt to retract from admission made by him and could also amount to an adverse inference against the defence in the suit. The application has been filed with an intent to abuse the process of law, they alleged, adding that the mosque has existed for over 400 years, a fact which has been sought to be undermined by the petition. Allowing the present application amounts to 'pre-determination' at an early stage in the suit that the Shahi Idgah Masjid is not a mosque, the court said. It is also cited the defendant's contention that the plaintiff is trying to introduce a new case 'through backdoor' to negate the admitted fact that Shahi Masjid Idgah is a mosque. Even the existence of the mosque is admitted by plaintiff number 5 in his affidavit and at this stage he will not be permitted to convert the existing mosque into a 'disputed structure' for an ulterior motive, it added. '…A decree of mandatory injunction has also been sought in present suit, with a prayer to get so called structure Shahi Masjid Idgah demolished within period prescribed by the Court and control thereof be handed over to authority prescribed by the Court. A decree of prohibitory injunction has also been sought against defendant no. 1 and 2 with regard to suit property of Katra Keshav Dev. The defendants have controverted plaint's allegations in the written statement and had admitted that Shahi Masjid Idgah was constructed in the year 1669 but denied the allegation that this is an unauthorized construction. The compromise dated 12.10.1968 was rightly filed by the parties in O.S. 43 of 1967 (Shri Krishan Janamsthan Seva Sangh vs. Shahi Masjid Idgah and others). The Shahi Masjid Idgah is a waqf property and has existed in the same state for 400-500 years. The suit is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act ,1991, Section 92 C.P.C, under Order VII Rule 3 C.P.C and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C,' the court said in its order. The bench fixed July 18 as the next date of hearing In January last year, the court had consolidated 15 suits related to the dispute on an application filed by the Hindu plaintiffs. The petitions seek removal of the mosque from the 13.37-acre complex, which it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple. Later, an application was moved to recall the order that consolidated all 15 suits filed by the Hindu petitioners. In October last year, the court rejected the application and said the cases have been consolidated 'in the interest of justice'.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Under BNSS, no bar on anticipatory bail in cases with death, life punishment: HC
1 2 3 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has held that with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) from July 1, 2024, the restriction on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment under section 438(6) of the CrPC (as was applicable in the state of UP), no longer applies. The court clarified that since Section 482 of BNSS, which now governs anticipatory bail, does not retain any such prohibition as was contained under section 438 (6) of the CrPC, there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment. With this clarification, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in its judgment dated July 3, allowed the second anticipatory bail application filed by one Abdul Hameed, who was summoned to face trial in a 2011 murder case but was not charge-sheeted during the investigation. The applicant's first anticipatory bail plea was rejected in Feb 2023 by a coordinate bench of the high court, in view of the bar contained under Section 438(6) CrPC. The bar inter alia on the grant of anticipatory bail for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment was introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. After July 1, 2024, with the BNSS coming into force, the applicant filed a fresh application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Scientists: Tinnitus? When tinnitus won't go away, do this (Watch) Hearing Magazine Undo The sessions court rejected it in March 2025, prompting him to move the high court. The applicant argued that the statutory bar under Section 438(6) CrPC no longer existed under BNSS, and the current application was filed under a completely different statutory regime. The state govt's counsel said that the applicant was trying to circumvent this statutory embargo by invoking Section 482 of the newly enacted BNSS, which does not contain a similar bar. It was submitted that since the offence was committed in 2011, and the charge sheet was filed under the CrPC regime, and even the cognizance was taken well prior to the BNSS coming into force, BNSS cannot retrospectively override the bar under Section 438(6) as applicable in UP. Having heard the counsels for both parties, the court said that the omission under Section 482 of BNSS, which governs anticipatory bail, regarding the bar under section 438(6) CrPC was conscious and deliberate, which indicated that the Parliament did not intend to continue the restriction introduced by the UP Amendment Act, 2019. "The absence of such prohibition in the new enactment assumes greater significance when viewed against the backdrop of the specific inclusion of this bar in the state amendment to CrPC," the court said. The court also noted that "the enactment of BNSS has created material changed circumstances, both in law and fact that justify fresh consideration on merits. The removal of the statutory bar contained in Section 438(6) of CrPC represents a fundamental change in the legal framework that obliterates the foundation upon which the first application was rejected". The court said that the first application was dismissed on maintainability and not merits, and since the legislative landscape had changed, the present application was maintainable. In its judgment dated July 3, the court cited a high court order in a case of 2024 to note that the present application filed after July 1, 2024, falls within the ambit of BNSS, and the applicant is entitled to benefit from more liberal provisions thereof.
