Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court has reserved its decision on a writ appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The appeal concerned the cancellation of a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favor of her son. The panel, comprising Mousumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar, was hearing the writ appeal filed by 76-year-old Kurakula Shanta.
The appellant invoked Section 23 of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Maintenance Tribunal. She sought the cancellation of a gift deed through which she had transferred property to her son, alleging negligence and misconduct. The RDO approved the application, cancelled the gift deed, and directed the son to treat the senior citizen with dignity and respect. The son challenged the RDO’s order by filing a writ petition. The single judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the RDO lacked the authority to cancel a registered gift deed. In the appeal, the senior citizen argued that even if the son had questioned the RDO’s jurisdiction, he should have pursued legal appeal before the District Collector under Section 16 of the Act, instead of directly approaching the writ court. Opposing the appeal, the respondents argued that cancelling the gift deed was beyond the powers of the Maintenance Tribunal and that the single judge was correct in intervening on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. After hearing arguments from both sides, the panel reserved the matter for decision. Petition against GHMC’s demolition plan
Justice B. of the Telangana High Court Vijaysen Reddy heard a writ petition challenging the proposed demolition of a building in Sri Raja Rajeshwarinagar in Medchal-Malkajgiri district, allegedly on the grounds that it encroached upon the buffer zone of Uracheruvu (Kapra Lake). The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by T.L. Kantha Rao, who questioned the GHMC’s action of demolishing the structure without prior notice and without following due process of law. The petitioner stated that the proposed action violated the GHMC Act, the TS-bPASS Act and Rules, and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction to restrain municipal officials from demolishing, stopping, or otherwise interfering with the alleged legal construction. During the hearing, a person claiming to be a resident of the area appeared before the court and raised an objection on environmental grounds, stating that a portion of the construction had intruded into the buffer zone of Kapra Lake. Considering the arguments, the judge observed that the action complained of by the petitioner appeared to have been initiated by the person’s objection. The judge directed the party-in-person to file an application to join the writ petition and directed the government lawyer to seek instructions in the matter. Advocate-Commissioner to Assess Road Condition
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti appointed Advocate Shafi Mohammad as Advocate-Commissioner to report on the physical condition of the road used to access a major diagnostic center at the RTC intersection in the city. The judge was hearing two contempt cases filed by Brijlal Tapadia and the Andhra Bank Staff Welfare Association, which are parties to a pending second appeal. Both parties accused each other of claiming exclusive ownership of the path and sought directions to prevent the other from using it. It was alleged that the approximately 140-foot road constructed by the diagnostic center’s management violated the court’s status quo order. The diagnostic center argued that the road was repaired only to address potholes and mud pits, and that the work was done in the public interest without intentionally or wantonly violating the court’s order. The petitioners stated that the court had previously directed both parties to ensure smooth access to the diagnostic center, and in the subsequent contempt case, it was alleged that stones and obstructions were being placed, obstructing such access, and this amounted to contempt of court. Considering the conflicting arguments, the judge appointed the Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the site and submit a report to the court.
