Hyderabad: The Telangana State Anti Corruption Bureau on Tuesday told the Hyderabad High Court that the Special ACB Court has erred in directing further investigation in the cash-for-vote case without hearing it in the complaint of YSR Congress MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy.
V. Ravikiran Rao, special public prosecutor of the ACB, was arguing before Justice T. Sunil Chowdary in a criminal petition by AP Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, challenging an order passed by the ACB Court for further probe.
He said though the order of the ACB Court under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC compelled the ACB to issue a second FIR in the case, it has disinclined to do so as the Apex Court bars the issuance of second FIR in a same offence.
He told the court that the complainant sought the order under Section 210 of the Cr PC, but the ACB Court granted the order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr PC.
The judge adjourned the case to Wednesday to decide whether former MP Undavalli Arunkumar be allowed as an intervener to argue in the criminal petition or not.
Submit data on landless, TS told
The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday asked the TS government whether it possesses details of landless poor, agriculture labourers and artisans affected by land acquisition for irrigation projects and if it did, then to place them before the court.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was hearing a batch petitions moved by landowners from Medak and Mahbubnagar districts, challenging the government’s procuring lands through GO 123.
The bench sought to know from the government how it would pay compensation to the landless poor and the artisans when there was no specific provisions under the Central Land Acquisition, 2013.
Senior counsels Vedula Venkata Ramana and A. Satya Prasad, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the Article 298 of the Constitution only empowers the state to carry on trade or business and to acquire, hold and dispose of property and make contracts for any purpose and it does not allow the state to acquire land for public purpose.
Replying a query from the bench, TS A-g K. Ramakrishna Reddy said that wherever there was displacement of people, Schedule 3 of the Act 2013 is applicable to compensate them.
Meanwhile, the state government filed an affidavit informing the court that it will extend benefits to the landless poor, agriculture labourers and artisans through GOs 190 and 191 which were issued in the case of NIMZ-Medak.
The arguments will continue on Wednesday.
