SHRC can not deal with private disputes: Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising of the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar on Monday granted stay of all further proceedings pending before the Telangana State Human Rights Commission in a writ petition alleged illegal constructions.
The writ petition filed by M. Santoshi contended that the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has directed her to appear in a complaint filed by V. Jyothi and another alleging that the petitioner was making illegal constructions. The petitioner contended that the SHRC has no authority to direct her to be present in person in a private dispute between neighbours. The panel while holding that the SHRC has no power to interfere and entertain any private dispute as such interference is beyond the scope and purview of the Act and stayed the proceedings before the Commission.
Kaleshwaram land acquisition
The said panel on Monday directed the Special Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer Kaleswaram Project to dispose of the representation of the petitioners in a writ petition filed challenging the acquisition of the lands by the authorities for Kaleswaram Project. The petitioner Manthena Venugopal Rao and other contended that the authorities did not even consider their written representations and personal visits to the offices. They contended that the entire proceedings were without any notice or according to any reasonable opportunity given to them. The panel granted four weeks time to the Special Deputy Collector for passing orders on the representations of the petitioners in the matter.
Compensation for HT lines in agricultural lines
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Monday heard a writ petition filed by farmers of Mogilicherla Village of Warangal District claiming compensation for Transmission lines over their agricultural lands. The petitioners pointed out that the laying of 400 KV High Tension overhead lines through their private patta lands was illegal.
The petitioners Acha Sambaiah and others contended that no prior permission was obtained by the Transmission licensee from the District Collector as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act after the farmers resisted the laying of the lines. The counsel for the Transmission company, Sarang Afzalpurkar pointed out to the court that the Collector was already approached by the Company and that a letter was issued by him for removal of obstructions to the concerned authorities including the local Police.
It was also pointed out by the Counsel that electrification of far and remote area was the primary objective of the Acts under which power to place the Transmission lines is granted as such the same is carried out in larger public interest where the interest of individuals will have to be side lined for a greater cause. He also argued that sufficient compensation was paid to the farmers in lieu of the same. The court after hearing the contentions of both the sides dismissed the writ petition holding that all the statutory obligations are followed in the case and the laying of transmission lines which is in the benefit of the larger public cannot be interfered with.
