⚡ Key Highlights & Quick Takeaways
- The Warangal police furnished a copy of the reply given by the forensic doctor to a questionnaire from the Parkal Assistant Commissioner of Police over the person’s death.
- The police should take appropriate action in accordance with the law based on the report, the direction said.Land acquisition stayedJustice K.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the Warangal police to seek the opinion of the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine of Osmania General Hospital over the possible cause of death of Lydella Raju who was found dead with injuries in October 2025.
The judge passed the order disposing of the writ petition filed by Raju’s wife Priyanka aggrieved by the opinion of the Kakatiya Medical College assistant professor that Raju died due to cardiac arrest. The Geesugonda police closed the case. The Warangal police furnished a copy of the reply given by the forensic doctor to a questionnaire from the Parkal Assistant Commissioner of Police over the person’s death. The judge observed that there was no point-wise clarification as sought by the ACP and hence the matter required examination afresh.
The judge directed the OGH Forensic department to examine all the material pertaining to the case and furnish the opinion. The police should take appropriate action in accordance with the law based on the report, the direction said.
Land acquisition stayed
Justice K. Sarath Kumar of the Telangana High Court passed an interim direction suspending the proceedings for acquisition of properties of nine persons for Rajiv Rahadari Elevated Corridor project.
The petitioners, including a nonagenarian Kallakury Subrahmanyam, contended that the proceedings issued for acquisition of their properties located along the proposed corridor were in violation of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act-2013 and other Acts.
Earlier, the judge passed similar interim direction in December 2025 pertaining to acquisition of properties for the elevated corridor project. In the present case, the respondents, including State government, Union government (Defence), Defence Estate Officer and Secunderabad Cantonment Board, were directed to file counter affidavits.