Central team evaluates execution of schemes in Andhra Pradesh
VISAKHAPATNAM: A seven-member delegation from the Ministry of Panchayat Raj, Government of India, visited various villages in Alluri Sitarama Raju (ASR) district on Saturday to assess the implementation of government schemes and the functioning of Grama Sabhas.
The team, led by Joint Secretary Mukta Sekhar, visited Paderu and Araku Valley mandals. During their field inspection, the officials evaluated the delivery of public services, village-level planning through Grama Sabhas, and the availability of basic infrastructure.
At Minumuluru village in Paderu mandal, the team met local coffee and pepper farmers to understand their economic conditions, challenges in cultivation, and concerns related to Minimum Support Prices (MSP).
On the occasion, Mukta Shekhar emphasised the role of village resolutions (Grama Sanhas) in formulating effective development plans tailored to local needs. The team also visited a camp organised by the Women and Child Welfare Department in the village, where they observed traditional community programmes such as Seemantham and Annaprasana.
They reviewed the process of pension distribution and enquired about the practice of cash disbursement. ASR Joint Collector Dr MJ Abhishek Gowda explained that due to limited banking facilities in the region and the remote location of many beneficiaries, pensions are being provided in cash to ensure accessibility.
He added that the process is monitored through the IVRS system to maintain transparency and prevent irregularities. The team also visited Sunkarametta village in Araku mandal, where they held interactions with residents and gathered feedback on local governance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Have law, history closed door on princely states' properties? SC to examine
If India's Constitution bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising from pre-Independence covenants, can erstwhile royal families like that of Jaipur ever reclaim their legacy properties? Or have time, law and history closed the door forever? These questions came into focus on Monday as the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether covenants signed between princely states and the Government of India before 1950 are amenable to judicial review even as Article 363 of the Constitution expressly keeps such matters out of the courts' jurisdiction . The legal challenge comes from the Jaipur royal family. Rajmata Padmini Devi, along with her daughter, Rajasthan deputy chief minister Diya Kumari, and grandson Maharaja Padmanabh Singh, moved the apex court against an April 17 ruling of the Rajasthan high court, which held that their civil suits, seeking possession and damages for prime Jaipur properties, were barred by Article 363. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih, while issuing notice on Monday, signalled willingness to engage with the nuanced constitutional debate, particularly the continuing relevance of Article 363 in the absence of its companion Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers and was repealed in 1972. With its admission, the case now becomes a pivotal test of how India navigates the legacy of its integration of over 500 princely states post-Independence. If the court finds Article 363 no longer an iron curtain, it could open the floodgates of historical claims, not just from Jaipur, but across former royal families of India. On the other hand, a reaffirmation of the constitutional bar would strengthen the finality of India's break from the royal past. Appearing for the Jaipur royals, senior advocate Harish Salve urged the Supreme Court to lift the constitutional veil and re-examine whether Article 363 still blocks judicial access in disputes involving princely covenants, particularly when the Union of India was not a party to the disputed agreement. The court, however, had a pointed question for Salve: 'How will you come out of Article 363?' Salve, assisted by senior counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, replied that Article 363 has multiple nuances and precedents. 'But the previous judgments did not answer whether Article 363 survives after deletion of Article 362. Both were part of the same package,' he added. Salve further contended that the 1949 Covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India per se, but by five Rajasthan rulers, with India acting merely as a guarantor. That distinction, he said, was vital to determining whether the bar under Article 363 even applies. The bench, however, expressed concern about the possible consequences of lifting this bar. 'If we agree with your submission, the entire city of Jaipur will be your property. All former rulers of Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur could reopen similar claims.' But Salve said: 'Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I am only arguing on the right to adjudicate. Ownership was 100% prior to the covenant. Nobody has a right to assert title over what belongs to the State but I must be allowed to argue that in court.' At this point, the court agreed to admit the matter for a hearing. The Rajasthan government's additional advocate general, Shiv Mangal Sharma, remained present during the hearing and accepted the notice on behalf of the state. He also undertook before the court that the issue will not be precipitated in so far as alienation of any property is concerned since the state respects the pendency of the matter before the highest court. The challenge stems from a sweeping April 17 judgment by the Rajasthan high court, which threw out four suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic heritage properties, including the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace. In a 50-page judgment, the high court ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from such covenants, citing the constitutional bar under Article 363. The court allowed the State's revision petitions and set aside lower court orders that had refused to reject the plaints under the civil procedure code (CPC). 'If law is clear and suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily to be rejected at the very threshold,' stated the judgment, citing apex court precedents. The high court found that the claims were inextricably linked to the rights and obligations flowing from the 1949 covenant, under which the state was granted perpetual use of certain royal properties for 'official purposes'. The royal family's suits had sought possession, injunctions, and mesne profits -- potentially running into crores, over several properties including those mentioned above. The royals claimed that the state had either abandoned their official use or was seeking to use them for commercial ventures like shopping malls or art galleries, violating the covenant's original purpose. However, the Rajasthan government argued that the suits were barred under Article 363, as they arose directly from a covenant between the ruler of Jaipur and the Government of India. The high court agreed. It held that even if the properties were in disrepair or misused, courts could not adjudicate such disputes due to the constitutional bar. The Jaipur royals are now hoping the Supreme Court will re-evaluate the legal architecture surrounding Article 363, especially after the 1972 repeal of Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers. During Monday's hearing, Salve suggested that the constitutional bar in Article 363 was designed to protect political agreements in the early years of the Republic but cannot be a permanent barrier in civil disputes, especially when one of the original articles has been removed. The bench retorted: 'You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur should be yours.' Still, the court agreed to hear the case and issued notice to the state.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
India, Paraguay vow to boost ties; united against terror: PM
Hosting the first foreign head of state since Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the visiting President of Paraguay, Santiago Peña Palacios, that the two countries are 'united in the fight against terrorism' and there is immense possibility of cooperation to fight against 'shared challenges' such as cybercrime, organised crime, and drug trafficking. Welcoming President Peña at delegation-level talks, Modi said the Paraguayan leader's first visit to Delhi will add new strength to the pillars of trust, trade, and close cooperation in the relations and will also add new dimensions to India-Latin America relations. Peña, who arrived in Delhi Monday, is on a three-day visit to India to explore ways to expand overall cooperation. It is his first visit to India and only the second trip by a president of the South American country. 'India and Paraguay stand united in the fight against terrorism. There is immense possibility of cooperation to fight against shared challenges such as cybercrime, organised crime, and drug trafficking,' Modi said, describing the two countries as integral parts of Global South with similar 'hopes, aspirations, challenges.' 'We see new opportunities for cooperation in areas such as digital technology, critical minerals, energy, agriculture, healthcare, defence, railways, space and overall economic partnership,' he said. Briefing reporters, P Kumaran, Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs, said: 'This visit comes soon after the barbaric terrorist attack in Pahalgam, J&K. PM Modi expressed his deep appreciation to Paraguay for its strong condemnation of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, as well as for the sincere condolences and solidarity expressed with the people and the Government of India… On behalf of the Paraguayan people, President Peña expressed his deep solidarity with the victims and families of the terrorist attack.' Kumaran said the two sides welcomed the establishment of a joint commission mechanism (JCM) at the Secretary / Vice-Ministerial level, which will serve as 'a key platform to review and advance cooperation in priority areas of mutual interest.' The PM also referred to New Delhi's preferential trade arrangement with South American trading bloc MERCOSUR, comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. 'We can work together to further expand it,' the PM said. On defence cooperation, Kumaran said while Paraguay's priorities are different to those of India, the 'logic driving their acquisition of defence hardware' is mainly law enforcement. He said one of the points discussed in the talks was 'AgriStack'. 'As a large agricultural country, the use of digital platforms to make agriculture more efficient… is of great interest to the Paraguayan side,' Kumaran said. Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Can Courts Interfere In Disputes Over Properties Of Ex Princely States? Top Court To Examine
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars courts from hearing disputes relating to properties of erstwhile princely states mentioned under the pre-constitutional covenants. Article 363 bars the interference of courts in any disputes which may arise from certain treaties, agreements, covenants, sanad, engagements, etc., executed between a princely state and the Government of India. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih, therefore, issued notice on a plea filed by members of Jaipur's royal family including Rajmata Padmini Devi, deputy chief minister Diya Kumari and Sawai Padmanabh Singh over the possession of the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha) and other properties situated in the walled city. They have challenged the decision of Rajasthan High Court, which held that suits seeking possession of the Town Hall, mentioned in the covenant between the erstwhile princely state and the Union of India, couldn't be entertained by civil courts under Article 363 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the royal family members, contended that the covenant in question was entered into by five princes whereas the Government of India was only a guarantor to ensure that the terms were fulfilled. He pointed out that this aspect was not argued in the proceedings before the high court, which resulted in an impugned judgement of April 17. Justice Mishra, however, asked Salve if the Government of India was not a party, how did the merger with the Union of India happen. Mr Salve clarified that the merger occurred after the covenant, with the onset of Article 1 of the Constitution. Justice Mishra said going by the arguments of Mr Salve, it would mean that if the Union of India was not a party to the covenant and, therefore, Article 363 would not apply then the situation would essentially lead to every other ruler filing a suit and asking for their property to be returned. Mr Salve said filling a suit and having a right (over the property) were two different things. He clarified that it was not the case of the petitioners to claim ownership over properties that were constitutionally vested with the state in line with the covenant, irrespective of Article 363. "Nobody has the right to what is vested with the finished, it's over. And if I was to ever question the inventory, it would be barred with or without 363 and I'd make that good." Justice Mishra, who was not convinced by Mr Salve's arguments, said, "Tomorrow, you will say the entire Jaipur is yours. This way every princely state will come forward and declare independence." The bench agreed to hear the matter in detail and issued notice to Rajasthan government noting two more suits were likely to be filed in the matter. Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, appearing for Rajasthan government, said given the longevity of the matter, the state would not precipitate the issue and maintain status quo on the disputed properties. The bench posted matter after eight weeks as it recorded Sharma's statement. The matter related to the long-standing multi-property dispute between the former royal family of Jaipur and the state government. The disputed properties – town hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk – are currently in the government's possession. The members of royal family had initially filed four suits before the civil court for mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of mesne profit for Town Hall. It was contended that the Town Hall was in official use only till 2001, and thereafter a new Vidhan Sabha building was constructed and it was not put to official use. Similar claims were raised for other properties, currently valued at thousands of crores. On April 17, the high court rejected the claims of the erstwhile royal family of Jaipur that town hall, old police headquarters, old home guard general directorate, and the old accountant office complex at Jaleb Chowk — all of which are situated in walled city are "government properties". It also decreed that no civil court could entertain any claims related to the present case. The order allowed four revision petitions filed by the state government against a subordinate court's order.
