HC Directs RDO To Decide on Rehabilitation Within 8 Weeks Relating to Land Acquired for NH
The state submitted that it has no objection if the appellant is allowed to approach the competent authority under the 2013 act for the compensation related to rehabilitation.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that the regime for grant of compensation was distinct and different under the National Highways Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, found that compensation component of acquisition is governed by the National Highways Act since the property is acquired for highway. However, since the 2013 Acquisition Act not only provides for compensation but also provides for rehabilitation, the rehabilitation of a person whose land is acquired is governed by the 2013 Acquisition Act. The panel was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Nune Vishnu, whose house was demolished to make way for a road in Nagarkurnool district. The appellant contended that while the single judge directed him to approach an Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, his claim pertained to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, which, according to him, fall within the domain of the competent authority under the 2013 Acquisition Act. It was also the contention of the appellant that, since his house was demolished during the proceedings, he be provided a temporary shelter till the time a rehabilitation compensation is deposited. The state submitted that it has no objection if the appellant is allowed to approach the competent authority under the 2013 act for the compensation related to rehabilitation. After hearing both sides, the panel directed the RDO to give a decision on rehabilitation related compensation within 8 weeks of an application by the appellant and further directed for consideration of application for a temporary shelter for the appellant.
SEBI Told To Get Instructions On Action Taken Over Insider Trading Allegations By Tech Mahindra sr executive
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed SEBI to obtain instructions on the action proposed on representations submitted by a former senior executive alleging insider trading and financial irregularities within Tech Mahindra. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by C.V.N. Varma, a former Vice President of Tech Mahindra. The petitioner contended that he acted as a whistleblower and submitted complaints to the management regarding alleged insider trading and irregularities in the award of projects. He further alleged that his services were terminated after he raised these issues. It was submitted by the petitioner that certain projects within the company could have been executed at lower costs and that the transactions warranted regulatory scrutiny. The judge quizzed the petitioner whether he was bound by a Non-Disclosure agreement due to which he was terminated. The petitioner however submitted that his grievance is a limited one and that the securities regulator SEBI should consider his representation on alleged irregularities. The judge also directed issuance of notice to Tech Mahindra.
Hc Seeks AICTE Clarification On Withholding Access To Online Portal of Sultan-Ul-Loom Education Society
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court sought clarification from the the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) on the issue of withholding access to the online portal of a Sultan Ul Uloom Education Society and Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology despite its Extension of Approval (EoA) for the academic year 2026-27 being shown as granted. The judge is hearing a writ petition filed by the institution, represented by its Secretary Zafar Javeed, challenging the action of AICTE in not enabling the institution to download the EoA certificate from its online dashboard. Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that all required documents were uploaded online and the institution was found to have zero deficiencies. He contended that though the approval was granted and reflected on the AICTE portal, access to download the approval was not provided, affecting the institutions participation in the admission process. The counsel appearing for AICTE contended that the denial was on account of non-compliance with AICTE norms and standards, stating that the council was responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance in technical education institutions.
