Live
- Govt plans to establish offshore Johns Hopkins University Campus in India
- Goa Aces clinch Indian Racing League title
- Study finds how hormone therapy can reshape the skeleton
- High-street fashion players looking at India for manufacturing: Report
- Shreyas Iyer to lead Mumbai as Prithvi Shaw returns for Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy
- 'Failed to resolve crisis': NPP withdraws support from BJP govt in Manipur
- Chennai: Actress Kasturi Remanded in Custody Until 29th of This Month
- Aaqib Javed likely to become Pakistan's new white-ball head coach
- BJP panel to draft poll charge sheet against AAP govt in Delhi
- Allu Arjun Thanks Fans in Patna, Teases 'Pushpa 2' Release
HC declines to stay land acquisition for Kaleswaram project
A vacation division bench of the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday declined to stay the interim order of a single judge who upheld the right of the State government to acquire lands and start construction activity for Sundilla Barrage under Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
Hyderabad: A vacation division bench of the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday declined to stay the interim order of a single judge who upheld the right of the State government to acquire lands and start construction activity for Sundilla Barrage under Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
The vacation bench comprising Justice Challa Kodandaram and Justice N Balayogi was hearing an appeal filed by Gudi Venkat Reddy and five other farmers against the order of single judge who had dismissed their miscellaneous petitions and giving his opinion that the interim order of the division bench passed on February 7 was not being violated by the State government.
B Rachna Reddy, counsel for the appellants, contended that the order of the single judge was not a correct interpretation of the order of the division bench passed on February 7. She informed the bench that on the last working day before vacation, the Government Pleader for Telangana government had urged the court to take up the matter to vacate the stay, but the court refused to hear the vacate stay petition as an urgent matter.
J. Ramachandra Rao, Additional Advocate General of Telangana, asserted that the appellants had not approached the court with clean hands and that they had suppressed material facts. He told the court out of 119 farmers, 84 had received the compensation and that only a few of the farmers had been creating hurdles for the project with mala fide intention.
The bench after hearing both sides, while refusing to stay the order of the single judge, directed the Registry to post the writ appeal along with main writs pending before the division bench concerned.
