High Court questions State’s priorities on welfare schemes, land losers’ compensation

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court questioned the State government’s priorities in pressing for resumption of marriage aid schemes while land losers await compensation for acquired properties. Hearing a writ petition challenging eight Government Orders, the Court declined to vacate the interim stay on Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak disbursements.

By Our Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday questioned the State government’s priorities in continuing welfare schemes such as Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak while allegedly failing to pay compensation to land losers whose properties were acquired for public purposes.

---

The Judge was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, challenging the constitutional validity of eight Government Orders through which the Telangana government extended financial assistance for marriages under the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The Court had earlier granted an interim stay on the operation of the eight GOs, including disbursement of amounts to beneficiaries, and the interim order was continued until September 9, 2026.

Appearing for the Telangana government, Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan informed the court that the government had stopped disbursements under both schemes following the Court’s order and that beneficiaries were facing difficulties. The Additional Advocate General urged the Court to take up the petition to vacate the stay on an urgent basis, stating that the stay had resulted in a “logjam” in the implementation of the schemes.

Justice Shravan Kumar, however, questioned the State’s urgency in seeking resumption of welfare payments when, according to the submissions before the Court, land losers were still awaiting compensation for years after surrendering their lands for public projects. The Judge questioned the double standards of the State in showing interest in disbursement of amounts for the said schemes while delaying the compensation to the land owners whose lands were acquired.

Referring to the instances where state officers had expressed financial difficulty in making payments to the land losers, the court questioned “Is it not the statutory duty of the State to pay compensation to the land losers?” and commented on why such payments were not being accorded priority.

The Additional Advocate General maintained that the welfare schemes were backed by budgetary allocations approved by the State Cabinet and the Legislative Assembly and that the Government Orders had been issued pursuant to those decisions.

The party in person Vijay Gopal filed an interim application seeking action against a social media platform/page, alleging that it was publishing misleading and contemptuous material concerning the writ petition and the two welfare schemes. He sought appropriate directions to the authorities and requested that the Revenue and Police departments be impleaded in the proceedings in view of the alleged threats to him and the social media campaign.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Shravan Kumar asked the Additional Advocate General to look into the security concerns raised by the petitioner. The Judge also observed that attempts to intimidate a person for approaching the Court could have implications for the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The Additional Advocate General stated that the schemes had the backing of the Cabinet and budgetary approval of the Assembly.

He further assured the Court that the Government would consider payment of compensation to land losers on priority. The State once again urged the Court to vacate the interim stay so that payments under Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak could resume. However, Justice Shravan Kumar declined to immediately vacate the stay and posted the writ petition and the connected applications for further hearing on Thursday.