Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 20 - May 26, 2024

Nominal index:

Mir Sadath Ali vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors 2024 LiveLaw(TS) 82

Maddikunta Narsimha Rao vs M. Chandra Shekar and four others 2024 LiveLaw(TS) 83

Smt Haneefa Bee vs. Mohd Nizam & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw(TS) 84

 Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha 2024 LiveLaw(TS) 85

Mohammed Nayeem vs. Smt. Naveditha Manvikar 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 86

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Smt Chukkala Eshwari and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 38

Report:

Telangana High Court Upholds Jurisdiction Of Revenue Division Officer To Issue Occupancy Rights Certificates In Cases Involving 'Service Inam' Land

Mir Sadath Ali vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors  

2024 LiveLaw(TS) 82

The Telangana High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment in a long-standing land dispute, affirming the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to issue Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) even in cases involving 'service inams.'

“Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proviso to Section 4(1) of Inams Act, 1955 was inserted by 1994 Amendment Act and though the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressed the intention of the legislature to exempt the village service Inams and Inams held by religious and charitable institutions from abolition, in the face of this specific proviso introduced by way of the aforementioned proviso, it is not open to the appellant to plead exclusion of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to consider grant of ORC even in respect of Inams held by the institution.”

Hereditary Trusteeship Abolished, Child Of Temple's Founding Member Can't Automatically Be Declared As Founding Family Member: Telangana High Court

Maddikunta Narsimha Rao vs M. Chandra Shekar and four others

2024 LiveLaw(TS) 83

The Telangana High Court has held that the child of a founding member of a Temple is not automatically entitled to be declared as a member of the founding family, merely because he is the child of the Founder.

The order was passed by Justice M.G. Priyadarsini in a Civil Miscellaneous appeal, which also upheld the action of the Tribunal in taking away the 'founding member' status of a respondent who had wrongly been declared as the founding member previously, in a claim initiated by a third party.

Court Cannot Certify Photostat Copy Of Unmarked Document Confirming Its Authenticity & Credibility: Telangana High Court

Smt Haneefa Bee vs. Mohd Nizam & Ors.

2024 LiveLaw(TS) 84

The Telangana High Court, recognizing the legal sanctity of a certified copy issued by the Court, held that a Court in its power cannot certify a Photostat copy of an unmarked document, thereby confirming its authenticity and credibility. It held:

"...when the legal sanctity and weight attached to the certified copies of the documents, be it marked or unmarked, issued by the Court is that of the original document, the Court in its power cannot certify a Photostat copy of an unmarked document, thereby confirming its authenticity and credibility."

The order was passed by Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty in a Civil Revision Petition 

S.2(2) HMA | Substantially 'Hinduised' Cannot Be Relegated To Customary Courts For Attaining Divorce Decree: Telangana High Court

Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha

2024 LiveLaw(TS) 85

The Telangana High Court has held that when recognized Tribes have admitted following Hindu traditions and Customs, and jointly file a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, the Court cannot relegate them to customary Courts citing the bar created by section 2(2) of the Act.

Section 2(2) of the HMA says that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to Schedule Tribes. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty relying on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena and Chittapuli v. Union Government, held:

“Section 2(2) of the Act are meant to protect customary practices of recognized Tribes. However, if the parties are following Hindu traditions, customs and that they are substantially Hinduised, they cannot be relegated to customary Courts, that too, when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites, customs and traditions.”

"Wastage Of Court's Valuable Time": Telangana HC Imposes Fine On Party For Initiating Contempt Proceedings Without Any Evidence To Support Claim

Mohammed Nayeem vs. Smt. Naveditha Manvikar

2024 LiveLaw (TS) 86

The Telangana High Court has held that initiating contempt proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes an abuse of legal process and a waste of court resources.

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty thus imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on Mohammed Nayeem who had initiated contempt proceedings against Naveditha Manvikar, emphasizing the need for willful and deliberate disobedience for such actions. The court reasoned that mere allegations, without substantial proof of violation of a court order, are insufficient to initiate contempt proceedings.

“Unless there is a deliberate and wilful violation of the Court orders, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated on mere allegation. As discussed above, absolutely, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the allegation of violation of Court order by the petitioner. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, initiation of contempt proceedings by the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law, wastage of valuable time of Court and there is deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to intimidate the respondent. The attempt/misadventure of this nature of the petitioner has to be curtailed to prevent misuse of process of law and also to deter the action of this nature.”

Heart Attack While Driving On Duty Is An 'Accident' For Claim Under Workman's Compensation Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Smt Chukkala Eshwari and Others

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 38

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a heart attack suffered by a lorry driver while on duty could be considered a work-related death, eligible for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. In this case, the court dismissed the insurer's appeal against a compensation award granted to the family of the deceased driver

The order was passed by Justice Nyapathy Vijay in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

“In this case, the fact that death by heart attack occurred in the course of driving the lorry from Nagpur to 8 Hyderabad is a clear indicative of the death having been caused due to employment induced stress and there can be no two ways about it. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds or any substantial questions of law to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.”