Telangana High Court Orders State To Allot House Site to 1971 Indo-Pak War Veteran

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government to allot a 300-square-yard house site to a decorated ex-serviceman, setting aside a 2014 government memo that had rejected his claim on the ground that he was originally a native of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by P. Seetaramaraju, a war-disabled Army veteran who fought in the 1971 Indo-Pak war and was medically boarded out of service after sustaining severe injuries. The court held that the government's decision to deny him a house site solely on the basis of his nativity was arbitrary, unsustainable and contrary to subsequent policy decisions extending benefits to war-disabled soldiers.

Seetaramaraju has been fighting for the site since 2002. He approached the High Court after authorities failed to act on his application under a government scheme for disabled ex-servicemen. Despite multiple favourable court orders over the years, including contempt proceedings and interim directions, the benefit was never extended.

The government eventually rejected his claim in July 2014, stating that he belonged to West Godavari district in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh and was therefore not entitled to a house site in Rangareddy district of Telangana.

Rejecting this reasoning, Justice Shravan Kumar observed that the authorities ignored subsequent government policies, including GOs and government memos, which extended the benefit of house-site allotments to war-disabled soldiers at their place of residence or employment, rather than restricting eligibility to their native district.

The judge noted that the petitioner had been residing in Hyderabad since 1975, following his discharge from the Army and that official records of the Regional Sainik Welfare Office recognised Hyderabad as his permanent residence. "The petitioner's service to the nation transcends territorial or regional boundaries," the court observed, adding that schemes meant to honour disabled ex-servicemen must be interpreted liberally rather than defeated by technical objections relating to nativity.

The judge also relied on precedents emphasising that land allotment schemes for ex-servicemen are intended to express the nation's gratitude and should not be frustrated by bureaucratic rigidity.

While noting that the government had stated no vacant land was available in Survey No. 123 of Hydernagar of Balanagar mandal, the court directed the authorities to allot the petitioner a 300-square-yard house site in any municipal area of Telangana within three months. The court clarified that the petitioner cannot insist on allotment of land at a location of his choice and that the allotment must be made strictly in accordance with law.

Telangana High Court Questions Maintainability of Plea Against MP Vijayendra Prasad

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court was not inclined to issue interim orders in a writ petition seeking directions to the Saifabad police to register an FIR against Rajya Sabha member and film writer V. Vijayendra Prasad over his alleged remarks on Dr B.R. Ambedkar, and questioned the maintainability of the plea.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi, hearing the petition filed by social activist Batthula Ram Prasad, asked petitioner's counsel why he had approached the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of availing the remedy before the competent Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The judge adjourned the matter to July 8 to enable the petitioner to address the issue of maintainability.

The petitioner alleged inaction of the police in registering an FIR on his complaints and the failure of senior officials to initiate action against the officers concerned under Section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged neglect of duty.

According to the petition, the complainant had approached the Saifabad police alleging that Prasad had made derogatory and insulting remarks against Dr Ambedkar, which, according to him, attracted the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner claimed that he had submitted video evidence along with his complaint.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the police had conducted a preliminary inquiry and concluded that there was no intention on the part of Prasad to insult Dr Ambedkar. Such an exercise, counsel argued, was contrary to Section 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which expressly bars any preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR in offences under the Act.

Government counsel Mahesh Raje opposed the writ petition, relying on judicial precedents to contend that the relief sought was not maintainable and urged the court to dismiss the petition.