Farmer complains about lack of compensation payment

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court filed a writ petition challenging the government’s refusal to compensate a farmer for the subsidence of his land. The judge was dealing with a complaint filed by Chakravarthula Rajagopalacharya, a farmer from Rajanna Sirsilla district, who claimed that his land was initially acquired for the development of Gudi cheruvu, an RTC bus stand, a parking space for a pilgrim centre. and a Veda rutashala. . The petitioner states that although the district collector and other respondents acquired one acre and 34 guntas of his land in survey no. 10, Vemulawada, the remaining part, which has since become submerged and uncultivable, remained in their possession without compensation. . The petitioner attempted to cultivate the remaining lands for two years but faced continuous flooding. In 2023, the petitioner requested compensation from the authorities, arguing that the submerged land was no longer viable for agriculture. He also claimed that officials deliberately avoided paying compensation and “played with citizens’ land.” During the course of the hearing, the judge expressed his 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 lands when they had already acquired the surrounding areas. The judge criticized the government’s tactic, saying: “If you acquire part of the land and there is a body of water on the other side, obviously the land in the middle will be submerged.” The government’s attorney requested additional time to file a response. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter for further decision.

Rape accused’s bail petition dismissed

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court refused to grant bail to a worker accused of committing offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POSCO Act). The judge was hearing a criminal bail petition filed by Uppu Kumar. The prosecution’s case is that the victim, who is a minor, was kidnapped by the accused, who then tied pusthelathadu and took her to a hotel room and raped her. It is alleged that after police found her, the victim expressed reluctance to go to her parents. The girl was later sent to a shelter home where she claimed that the petitioner had raped her several times. The petitioner maintained that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner also pointed out that the entire investigation in the case had already been completed and therefore he sought grant of bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that specific allegations had been made against the petitioner and that if released on bail, he might threaten witnesses and therefore requested that the petition be dismissed. After listening to both parties and examining the material, the judge observed that the investigation is pending and the victim was a minor. The judge also considered that the seriousness of the crime was high and rejected the request for bail.

HC admits plea against non-implementation of PMAYS

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday admitted a PIL challenging the non-construction of two-bedroom apartments 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 the authorities had failed to construct 468 2BHK apartments and hand them over to the beneficiaries. under the plan was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The panel, while admitting the PIL, chastised the state for not filing a reply and said that if the state did not deny the allegations in the petition, it would be presumed to be conceding the allegations. However, the panel ordered that the response be filed within four weeks.

Contempt case: HC notice to senior officials

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered to notify the principal secretary of the state transport, highways and construction department and the transport commissioner in a contempt case related to non-payment of pension and other retirement benefits to a pensioner of 61 years old. administrative official. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by P. Ravinder, alleging willful disobedience of earlier orders passed by the judge in a written statement. He had challenged the action of the respondents in not paying pension and other retirement benefits by regularizing the period of suspension of the petitioner as “in service” for all purposes after the disproportionate assets case was dismissed following a departmental inquiry against him. The judge in the appeal notice filed by the petitioner directed the principal secretary to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner alleged that despite the instructions, the respondents had not complied and were therefore guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notification and published the matter after four weeks.