Live
- ‘Daaku Maharaaj’ to kickstart musical promotions
- ‘Game Changer’ team teases with a new promo
- Nara Lokesh emphasises overhaul of govt. schools and mid-day meal program
- Amid turmoil, air pollution peaks in Bangladesh as temperatures fall
- Google Trends unveils list of most searched ‘Indian Movies of 2024’
- BGT 2024-25: Hazlewood signals readiness for Brisbane Test after training with full run-up
- Google Presents Deep Research AI Tool for Comprehensive Web Reports
- Share of top 50 stocks to total market cap at all-time low: Report
- Nortje ruled out of SA’s remaining white-ball matches against Pakistan
- Mamata doesn't want INDIA bloc to succeed, claims BJP's Rahul Sinha
HC allows Telangana to acquire pvt land under GO123
A two-judge bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U Durga Prasad permitted the government of Telangana to proceed with purchase of private lands under the controversial GO Ms 123.
​Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U Durga Prasad permitted the government of Telangana to proceed with purchase of private lands under the controversial GO Ms 123.
The bench, however, made it clear that the occupants will not be dispossessed until the rehabilitation programme is in place. The state, which is acquiring 12,600 acres for the National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) in Medak district, has been purchasing land from farmers.
To the uninitiated, affected agricultural labour approached the court questioning the said order and complained that it failed to compensate them properly. The bench had directed the government to make changes to the said order on the lines of the Central Land Acquisition Act 2013.
The government had accordingly amended the order and issued a fresh GO 190 providing Rs 7 lakh compensation or a monthly annuity of Rs 3,000 for SCs and Rs 2,500 for others for 20 years. The petitioner’s counsel objected to the revised order saying that it has no provision for providing employment in the industrial units of NIMZ and that the state is introducing the word joint family in its GO when the central Act spoke only about a family.
A lone widow or a widower too should be called as a family and should be adequately compensated, the counsel said. “If a displaced person opts for availing monthly annuity, his monthly payment should be linked with consumer price index otherwise he or she may lose financially in the long run”, he complained.
The state, following the direction of the court, brought in GO Ms No 191 and placed it before the court. In this the state agreed to link the monthly annuity with consumer price index, removed the word joint from the expression – joint family – and promised that it would provide jobs to the displaced in tune with its 2014 industrial policy.
The bench sought more clarity on the term family and on providing jobs.
