HYDERABAD: Questioning the state government’s priorities, the Telangana High Court on Wednesday asked whether payment of statutory compensation to land losers should take precedence over welfare schemes such as Kalyana Lakshmi and Shadi Mubarak.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar made the observations while hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the two schemes, as the court sought clarity from the government on their legal framework, funding and statutory basis.
The court also pointed to cases of land losers, including families waiting across generations for compensation for land acquired by the government, and asked the state to clarify its plans to clear the pending dues.
“We are not telling the state how it has to spend its finances, but is statutory compensation for land losers your priority or welfare schemes?” Justice Shravan Kumar asked.
The judge directed Additional Advocate General Mohd Imran Khan to obtain clear instructions from the government on payment of pending land acquisition compensation and said land losers should be given priority in meeting statutory obligations.
The court’s observations came with the interim stay on the implementation of Kalyana Lakshmi and Shadi Mubarak, imposed on August 12, continuing. The matter was posted for further hearing on Thursday.
State govt’s priorities seriously debatable, observes judge
The court had earlier stayed the operation of eight GOs governing the schemes, including payments to beneficiaries, pending further hearing.
Justice Shravan Kumar said courts were witnessing numerous disputes and contempt proceedings over unpaid land acquisition compensation. He noted that assurances were often given before courts and formal processes initiated, but payments were not subsequently made.
“There is a hue and cry in courts regarding land acquisition compensation, while even 50% are not paid,” the judge observed, saying the state’s priorities in such circumstances were “seriously debatable”.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Vijay Gopal, argued that the government’s counter-affidavit was evasive and failed to adequately address questions concerning the constitutional validity of the schemes.
The AAG submitted that similar welfare schemes were being implemented across the country. He said the schemes were intended to promote the welfare and empowerment of girl children and sought lifting of the interim stay.
The AAG also sought an opportunity to place a detailed counter before the court explaining the schemes’ benefits, funding mechanism, legal basis and other relevant aspects.
Justice Shravan Kumar clarified that the court was not opposed to welfare measures or programmes having a social objective. The immediate concern, he said, was whether such schemes were being given priority over statutory obligations, particularly payment of compensation to land losers.
“Courts never held anything against the schemes. But only asking how they are backed and under what statute,” he said.
The judge further observed that land losers who had surrendered their properties for development and nation-building projects were also entitled to consideration. “The issue is priorities. Courts are flooded with contempt cases. When we speak of social causes, land losers should also be looked into,” Justice Shravan Kumar remarked.