A division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao on Monday adjourned the writ appeal filed regarding GO 123 to Tuesday to facilitate Tukkamma and other agricultural labourers of Bardipur, Jarasnagham Mandal, Medak district to respond to the Telangana State government’s proposal regarding the compensation etc., to the landless poor.
The bench was dealing with the writ appeal filed by State government challenging the judgment of single judge who quashed the GO 123 which is being used by the Telangana government to buy large chunks of land in the name of projects. The Bench on Friday asked the State government to file affidavit regarding the proposed rehabilitation in favour of landless poor of a village where lands are purchased under GO 123.
The government filed affidavit offering Rs. 5.04 lakh per family and Rs. 1.24 lakh for persons without spouse. For twenty years monthly payment of Rs. 3,000 for SC, STs and Rs. 2,500 for others was offered. One-time grant of artisans and lumpsum of Rs. 7.5 lakh in lieu of other benefits was also offered. All these are for landless poor only. The bench however heard at length the arguments of Vedula Venkata Ramana, senior advocate who filed a separate case on behalf of Yadiah 157 other agricultural labourers, artisans. He said that in the light of constitutional provisions and the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, the present GO 123 has to be struck down. Several others filed implead petitions. Another case was filed by landowners of Etigadda Kishtapur making serious allegations against the officers. All these will be listed on Tuesday.
Notification withdrawnThe Telangana State government has informed Justice Suresh Kumar Kait of Hyderabad High Court that it would withdraw a notification issued to acquire lands for Vattem Balancing Reservoir in Mahabubnagar district under the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme as several illegalities were shown to the High Court.
The court was dealing with a petition filed by K. Veeranandam and another from Vattem village in Mahabubnagar district questioning the notification issued on June 2016. The petitioners contended that market value was not updated before notification. Sixty days’ notice contemplated is not given. Social impact assessment was sought to be done away with and given up in the name of ordinance which is lapsed. When the court questioned the government, the government said that it will withdraw the notification.
