Telangana High Court allows woman to sell husband’s property for treatment
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy permitted the family members to utilise funds for medical treatment apart from permitting them to sell one of the three properties
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday permitted wife and children of a septuagenarian suffering from a serious illness to transact with the husband/ father’s property for meeting the medical expenses. N Vaidehi along with her two sons filed a writ plea seeking court direction to appoint her as the legal guardian of her husband N Subbaram for the purpose of dealing with his immovable or moveable properties, tangible or intangible assets and to operate his savings bank accounts and utilize the funds realised towards for medical treatment. The petitioner told the court that her husband was in a vegetative state and needed medical treatment. Justice B Vijaysen Reddy permitted the family members to utilise funds for medical treatment apart from permitting them to sell one of the three properties that were in the name of Subbaram. However, the judge directed the petitioner to inform the High Court Registrar about the proposed sale transaction and seek court approval again at the time of execution of sale transaction.
Telangana High Court issues orders to protect hillock in Jadcherla
The Telangana High Court headed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti on Thursday issued a ruling to protect a hillock locally known as Chowdammaguta at Jadcherla village. The division bench dealt with a PIL which supported the classification about seven acres of land in Survey Number 278 situated at Jadcherla village as government land instead of patta land along with a batch of writ petitions filed claiming the contrary.
The PIL was filed by Chand Khan, Srama Shakthi Puraskaram awardee, who sought directions for the protection of the hillock. The government land was given on lease to P Prakash Rao for quarrying, who approached revenue authorities when third parties encroached upon the land under lease claiming to be patta land in their name. By acting upon the application, Joint Commissioner and Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record took steps to classify the land as government land in 2014. D.Jaipal Reddy, counsel for the patta land owners, contended that they had purchased the said land in 2005, and that the same was mutated in their name. He also contended that Section 87 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue, Act mandates correction to be carried out within a period of two years, which was not done in this case. Senior counsel E Madan Mohan Rao representing quarry lease owner, said that the period of two years under section 87 was a bar only based in certain factual situations.
V. Raghunath, senior counsel representing the petitioners in PIL, submitted that the patta land owners were trying to sell the property under the guise of approved layout granted by the gram panchayat, by dividing the land into plots. The court on perusal of the history records and orders passed in 2014 observed that there was a clear correlation between land of lessee and Government land and establishes that land was leased for quarrying. The court also pointed that “We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by Joint Collector and Commissioner” and upheld their decision. Accordingly, the PIL was allowed and the Writ petitions filed for conversion of Government Land to Patta land were dismissed.
Telangana High Court grants anticipatory bail to Dhanwantari directors
The Telangana High Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bails to the directors of different companies floated by M/s. Dhanwantari Foundation International (DFI) for alleged financial fraud of Rs.3.75 crore and cheating. Justice J Sreedevi was dealing with a batch of criminal petitions filed by the directors i.e., Padma, Jayasree and others seeking anticipatory bails in the event of arrest for the said alleged offences. It may be recalled that Managing Director of DFI and other members were arrested and recently released on bail granted by the High Court.
It was the case of the petitioners that the complainant was one of the investors in the petitioner’s companies and had received interest for a substantial period of time. The complainant had frivolously filed the complaint alleging financial fraud whereas the company did not commit any fraud and had timely paid the principal and interest amounts to the investors, the counsel said. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State contended that the petitioner’s company was exclusively working for the welfare of the Brahmin community and the petitioners induced the complainant and other victims to invest in the DFI and as well as in its floated companies. The petitioners also issued debentures and executed agreements for allotment of plots at Yadagirigutta, Tirupathi, Vizag and Bengaluru but paid only nominal interest amounts for a period of time and later halted the payments, the APP added.
However, the judge by observing that the company had earlier paid the interest amounts for a longer period of time and its promise to pay the present interest amounts, held that the petitioners does not procure any intention to cheat the complainant and others. The judge while granting anticipatory bails, imposed conditions to surrender the passports of the petitioners and to execute a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.
