Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday made it clear that it will not permit the TS government at this stage to procure land for irrigation projects by modifying the interim stay.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter was dealing with an application by the TS government seeking to modify the interim order granted on January 5, 2017.
TS advocate-general K. Ramakrishna Reddy told the court that the government has already procured about 49,000 acres under GO 123 as on the date of interim order of the High Court by spending Rs 5,138 crore.
In view of the interim order, further procurement of land through GO 123 for providing drinking water facility has come to a standstill, the A-G said.
Mr Reddy submitted that the state government has formulated a policy under GO 38 in accordance with provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 2013, for providing rehabilitation and resettlement measures to the affected families whose livelihood was affected due to procurement of land.
While urging the court to permit the government procure lands, the A-G contended that any delay in execution of projects will lead to an escalation of the cost of construction of the projects and thereby adversely affect the state exchequer.
A. Satya Prasad, senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners who had challenged GO 123 said that application of the government seeking modification of the interim orders at this interlocutory stage was not maintainable. Urging the court not to modify the order, he prayed the bench to take up the matters for final hearing. The bench posted the case to Monday.
Hyderabad HC notices on SC sub-categorisation
The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Central, AP and TS governments seeking their stand on a petition seeking sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes.
Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao was admitting the petition by Madiga Hakkula Parirakshana Seva Samiti and Madiga Reservation Sadana Samiti seeking to declare as arbitrary and illegal the failure of the respondent governments to comply with Section 3(4) of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, on the report dated May1, 2008 submitted by the National Commission.
The petitioners urged the court to direct the respondents to comply with Section 3(4) of the Act, and also on a report submitted by Justice Ramachandra Raju; Commissioner of Enquiry for sub-categorisation of SCs on May 26, 1999.
While issuing notices, the judge directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits.
