Telangana High Court clears decks for Daggubati farm, others
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice S Nanda dismissed writ appeals filed by the government thereby clearing the decks for Daggubati Farm and others. The appeals were filed challenging a single judge order setting aside permission accorded to District Collector, Ranga Reddy in 2008 […]
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice S Nanda dismissed writ appeals filed by the government thereby clearing the decks for Daggubati Farm and others. The appeals were filed challenging a single judge order setting aside permission accorded to District Collector, Ranga Reddy in 2008 to issue proceedings for the cancellation of Supplementary Sethwar issued to the properties belonging to Daggubati Rama Naidu and family.
The government pleader contended that the patta certificates issued to the original vendors of the petitioners in 1961 were in English language contrary to the practice of them being in Telugu. He further contended that the signature on the patta certificate did not tally with the signature of the then Tahsildar. The patta certificates granted to the vendors of petitioners in ex-serviceman category was referred to a handwriting expert and they were proved to be not genuine. The counsel for petitioner contended that the law bars the proceedings being issued after lapse of 45 years from the date of assignment. The court while observing that there was huge lapse in time and that even on merits the de novo enquiry was not warranted, dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the single judge.
Court asks for advocate to be appointed
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhasker Reddy on Wednesday came to the rescue of an elderly couple who complained that they were being threatened by loan vendors. The couple mentioned that they own a small-scale industry in IDA Uppal. They have taken loans from different sources and due to Covid they were unable to repay the loans. They also said that though they lodged a police complaint about the threat posed to their life by loan vendors, the police were not taking any action. When the court asked who their advocate was, they replied that they were not in a position to file a case as they cannot afford fee of advocate. The court noticing their concern, referred their grievance to the State Legal Service Authority Hyderabad and directed the authority to appoint an advocate in their case.
CESS elections schedule
The same panel on Wednesday further gave the government time till August 22 to submit a schedule for holding elections to the Co-operative Electric Supply Society (CESS) in Sircilla. The petition was filed by a member, A Kanakaiah from Vilasagar village, who questioned the way the state was interfering in its functioning. He contended that the co-operative society, which had the distinction of being the biggest in the state with 3.5 lakh members, was being run by a 15-member committee appointed by the State. The court had earlier stayed the operation of GO RT No. 151 issued on April 18 which brought in a new set of rulers to run the co-operative society. When the Additional Advocate General further requested time to argue the case, the panel voicing its strong displeasure at the happenings in CESS, directed state to furnish schedule of elections by August 22.
NCLT orders challenged
The same panel heard the arguments of Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh S. Sriram in a petition challenging the orders passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The petition was filed by Southern and Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, AP aggrieved by the orders of NCLT directing them to pay an amount of Rs.28,56,56,746 to the Interim Resolution Professional, who took over the management of Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited. The amount directed to be paid was towards the power supply bills raised by Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited. The Advocate General representing the petitioners argued that NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain any disputes between the generator Lanco Kondapalli Power or its interim resolution professional with the petitioners, the power distribution companies. He further contended that APERC (Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission) was the competent authority to adjudicate disputes between licensees/distribution company and generators. The court posted the matter to August 24 for further hearing.
