Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday asked the Telangana state government to explain to the court whether the Land Acquisition Act 2013 envisages compensation for families who have not been displaced or not. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice T. Rajani was dealing with batch of PILs by farmers from Gowliwada village of Peddapally district, challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner Land Administration on April 26, 2017 allowing the district collector to enter their lands and also take up construction of the Sundilla Barrage under the Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Scheme.
B. Rachana Reddy, counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the affected families were not displaced from their houses under the project, their lands were either acquired or their livelihood affected due to the acquisition and hence they have to be compensated under the Land Acquisition Act 2013. When the bench sought to know the response from TS advocate-general D. Prakash Reddy, he sought time to explain the rule. While asking the A-G to explain the relevant provisions, the bench posted the matter for final hearing.
State moves HC in Akbar attack case:
The Hyderabad High Court on Monday admitted two appeals by the TS government against the acquittal of Mohammed Omar Bin Yafai alias Mohammed Pahelwan and the other nine accused the MIM MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi attempt to murder case by the VIIth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court of the city recently. In one appeal, the government challenged the acquittal and in another, it challenged the 10 year imprisonment awarded by the trial court to accused Hasan, Abdullah, Wahed and another in the case.
A division bench comprising Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy and Justice J. Uma Devi, while admitting the appeals issued notices to Mohammed Pahelwan and the other accused in the case. The government, while challenging the sentence, relied on the opinion of the doctors who said that the MLA had sustained serious injurious and if he had not been brought to the hospital, there would be a threat for his life. The government contended that the trial court did not consider this fact while giving its verdict.
