Farmer Complains Against Non-Payment of Compensation

 Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the government’s refusal to compensate a farmer for the submergence of his land. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Chakravarthula Rajagopalacharya, a farmer from Rajanna Sirsilla district, who contended that his land was initially acquired for the development of Gudi cheruvu, an RTC bus stand, a pilgrim centre parking space, and a Veda patashala. The petitioner claims that although one acre and 34 guntas of his land in Survey No. 10, Vemulawada, were acquired by the district collector and other respondents, the remaining portion, which has since become submerged and uncultivable, was left in his possession without compensation. The petitioner attempted to cultivate the remaining land for two years but faced continuous flooding. In 2023, the petitioner sought compensation from the authorities, arguing that the submerged land was no longer viable for farming. He also stated that officials were deliberately avoiding paying compensation and ‘playing with the land of the citizens’. During the course of hearing, the judge expressed strong disapproval of the government’s handling of the situation. The judge questioned how the government intended to prevent water from flooding the petitioner’s remaining land when they had already acquired the surrounding areas. The judge criticised the government’s tactics, stating, “If you acquire part of the land and there is a water body on the other side, obviously the land in the middle will be submerged.” The government pleader requested additional time to file a response. The judge accordingly posted the matter for further adjudication.

Bail plea of rape accused dismissed

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court refused to grant bail to a labourer accused of committing offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act). The judge was dealing with a criminal bail petition filed Uppu Kumar. The case of the prosecution is that the victim, who is a minor, was kidnapped by the accused, who later tied pusthelathadu and took her to a hotel room and raped her. It is alleged that after the police found her, the victim expressed unwillingness to go with her parents. Thereafter, the girl was sent to a shelter home wherein she stated that the petitioner had raped her several times. The petitioner contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner also pointed out that entire investigation in the case was completed and hence, prayed for grant of bail. The additional public prosecutor opposed the application contending that specific allegations were levelled against petitioner and if released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material, the judge observed that investigation is pending and the victim was a minor. The judge also considering that the gravity of offence was high, dismissed the bail petition.

HC admits plea against non-implementation of PMAYS

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday admitted a PIL challenging non-construction of double bedroom flats under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme (PMAYS). The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by A. Jagadeeshwar, who said that the authorities had failed to construct 468 2BHK flats, and not handing over the same to the beneficiaries under the scheme was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The panel, while admitting the PIL, reprimanded the state for not filing a counter and said that if the state was not denying the averments of the petition, it will be presumed that it is conceding to the allegations. The panel, however, directed that the counter be filed within four weeks.

Contempt case: HC notice to senior officials

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the principal secretary of state transport, roads and building department and the commissioner of transport in a contempt case pertaining to non-payment of pension and other retirement benefits to a 61-year-old retired administrative officer. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by P. Ravinder, alleging willful disobedience of the earlier orders passed by the judge in a writ plea. It had challenged the action of the respondents in not paying pension and other retirement benefits by regularising the suspension period of the petitioner as ‘on duty’ for all purposes after the disproportionate assets case was dropped following departmental inquiry against him. The judge in the writ plea filed by the petitioner directed the principal secretary to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner alleged that despite directions, the respondents had failed to comply and hence were guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice and posted the matter after four weeks.