Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to grant interim relief in a writ petition challenging the alleged high-handed actions of government authorities in attempting to dismantle a goshala and a temple in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The judge accepted a writ petition filed by the Sri Gomuneendra Swamy Trust, represented by chief priest Vedantam Ananta Rama Sharma, against HYDRAA, alleging illegal attempts to demolish the Sri Uma Maheshwara Temple and an adjoining goshala situated on 1,137.99 square yards of land in Survey No.s 130 and 131/Part of Yapral, under the Alwal municipality. It was contended that the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that civil proceedings were pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at Kushaiguda. Despite the pendency of the suit, the respondent authorities were allegedly attempting to interfere with the property and dismantle the existing structures, including the temple and goshala, without issuing notice or following due process. The petitioner contended that such actions were not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice. It was further argued that any interference during the pendency of a civil suit amounted to contempt of the judicial process. The petitioner sought a direction to restrain the respondents from carrying out any demolition or interference with the petitioner’s possession until the conclusion of the ongoing legal proceedings. The respondent authorities argued that a similar writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court and that they were acting in accordance with due process. They also claimed that the temple had been demolished twice but was subsequently reconstructed. The judge was not inclined to pass interim orders at this stage. He directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit by next week and posted the matter for further hearing on June 23.
Writ dismissed in bank land dispute
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by several individuals and companies seeking to restrain Kotak Mahindra Bank from initiating proceedings under the Sarfaesi Act against land situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally mandal of Rangareddy district, and vacated interim orders issued earlier. The writ petition was filed by Nam Hotels Pvt. Ltd, AMN Hotels Pvt. Ltd, KS Business Consultants Pvt. Ltd, MN Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Arthi Comptech Ltd and other individuals, challenging the action of the bank in initiating measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Sarfaesi) Act. The petitioners contended that the subject property had been allotted to them by the state through GO Ms. No. 128 issued in February 2006 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and that the bank’s proceedings were arbitrary and without the authority of law. The petitioners argued that the bank could not proceed against the property in question, which was covered under a prior government allotment. Justice Nanda held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked to resolve title disputes and that such matters must be adjudicated in appropriate civil or statutory forums. The judge vacated the interim orders issued in April 2008, which had been in force, but directed that the status quo be maintained to enable the petitioners to pursue alternative statutory remedies.
Parents allege illegal custody of minor
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a habeas corpus writ plea filed by the parents of a minor girl alleging illegal detention of their 16-year-old daughter by a private individual. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a writ petition filed by parents of a minor girl seeking production and custody of their daughter. The petitioners, residents of the Suryapet district, alleged that their daughter went missing on May 16, 2025, and was allegedly in the illegal custody of a resident of Gudi Thanda, Thungathurthy mandal. The petitioners submitted that they had lodged a complaint at the Madiralla police station the very next day but alleged that no concrete steps were being taken by the police to trace their daughter and restore her custody to the petitioner. They contended that their daughter had no relationship with the individual and that her detention was illegal. Special government pleader, appearing for the state, submitted on instructions that the alleged detenue voluntarily left with the unofficial respondent and that sincere efforts were underway to locate her. He sought time to obtain further instructions. Taking note of the submissions, the panel posted the matter for further hearing after a week.
HC refuses to quash DVC proceedings
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court reaffirmed that quashing of domestic violence case (DVC) proceedings through writ petitions was impermissible, except in rare cases of jurisdictional error. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by the parents-in-law and sister-in-law seeking to quash DVC proceedings initiated against them by their daughter-in-law. The petitioners contended that no specific relief was sought against them in the complaint and that their son and his wife, the complainant, had been living separately in Hanumakonda since their marriage in 2018. The woman argued that all three petitioners actively participated in the harassment and that she intended to amend her petition before the magistrate to reflect the same. The judge held that the allegations levelled by the complainant relating to harassment, dowry demands and abuse required a full-fledged trial and could not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The judge observed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the complaint suffered from a patent lack of jurisdiction, which was the only ground on which such proceedings could be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judge noted that the complainant’s plea for police protection “from her husband and his family members” directly covered the petitioners. The judge cited the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and emphasised that any woman in a domestic relationship who alleges abuse is entitled to seek protection under the Act. The judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
