Hyderabad: In the biggest legal victory for the Telangana government since its formation, the Hyderabad High Court on Friday quashed an order allotting 250 acres in Puppalguda near Gachi-bowli and Banjara Hills to private individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act.
The present market value of the land is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore.
A division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt had allowed petitions of TS challenging the allotment of property by the then chief commissioner of land administration of AP designated under Section 6(1) of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, on February 26, 2003 and June 28, 2006.
While observing that the CCLA had purportedly exercised its jurisdiction under the DPCR Act, the bench rejected petitions of claimants holding that they are convenient pleas to resist the state and ruled that the petitions of the government are maintainable.
Allotment orders not based on records: High Court
The legal heirs of Parasuram Ramchand Mangir Malani and and Bhagwandas H. Makhija who were allotted the evacuee land, moved writs against the erstwhile AP government.
The court granted status quo in 2006. In 2007, the interim order was made absolute, directing the government and the allottees not to create any third party interests.
The government contended that the allotments were contrary to the provisions of the DPCR Act and the principles of natural justice. Neither the CCLA nor the secretary of Revenue had powers to entertain the belated claims, the government contended.
Pointing out that a huge scam was involved in the allotments, the bench said, “We are constrained to observe that shades of invisible characters have certainly played a vital role in obtaining the allotment orders impugned in the writ petitions, there is more than what meets the eye.”
The bench quashed the allotment orders holding that they were without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and not based on material available on record. There was no application of mind to the facts of the case and relevant provisions of law, the bench stated.
While observing that the CCLA had purported exercise of his jurisdiction under the DPCR Act, the bench rejected the contention of the claimants and stated: “We hope and trust that the state government, being custodian of public property, will undertake an inquiry into the subject allotment orders and take appropriate action against all the persons responsible for and involved in this scam.”
