A PIL was filed challenging the state government’s decision to transfer several acres of tank bed land for building houses. The petitioners contended that apart from providing water, the tanks concerned were indispensable for raising the water table which had already been depleted in the area. Recognising the need for shelter, the Supreme Court held that as the proposed houses were meant for high and middle income groups, it was unlikely that the prohibition of construction would render anyone homeless. On the other hand, the state is bound by its duty to preserve the tanks for the benefit of the community. The court prohibited further construction (Intellectual Forums Tirupathi vs State of A.P.).
A government employee filed a writ petition when his application for the correction of his date of birth was rejected. His records in a state school showed his date of birth as 10.09.40. He contended that this could not be true because a state hospital had issued a certificate showing his date of birth as 1.07.45. But the Madras High Court held that as nothing had been shown to prove that the school records were incorrect, a medical officer’s certificate had no value (Rangasamy M. vs State of Tamil Nadu).
Responding to a matrimonial suit filed by her husband, the wife alleged that he had fathered a son by another woman and asked for a DNA test to prove that he had committed adultery. The husband preferred an appeal against the order, contending that the DNA test was beyond the scope of inquiry in a matrimonial suit. Setting aside the lower court’s order, the Bombay High Court held that DNA tests in matrimonial cases could be granted in the interest of a child. In this case, it observed that the wife had sought the tests in her own interest (Sunil Eknath Trambake vs Leelavati Sunil Trambake).
SOLON
