Bhoodan Land Scam: Telangana HC Rejects Writ Petitions

Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao on Thursday dismissed a batch of three writ petitions filed by accused persons seeking to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against them in connection with the alleged Bhoodan land scam at Nagaram of Maheshwaram mandal.

The writ petitions were filed by M.A. Akthar, Lateef Rahman Sharfan and Abdul Rahman Sharfan, who contended that the action initiated by the central agency was unwarranted and without proper basis.

Narender Naik, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, argued that the preliminary probe revealed several illegalities and huge money transactions were taking place. Hence, an in-depth inquiry was required. He submitted that the ED’s investigation was not in the line of the local police effort.

Counsel said the ED was conducting its probe into the money laundering aspect. After hearing the submissions and examining the material on record, the division bench declined to intervene with the investigation and dismissed all three writ petitions, thereby permitting the Enforcement Directorate to proceed further in accordance with law.

The case arises out of allegations concerning illegal transfer and sale of Bhoodan and government land parcels situated in Survey No.s 181, 182, and 194 of Nagaram. Based on the registration of a police FIR, the ED had conducted searches in the houses of some of the accused, seized property and summoned them for investigation.

The petitioners approached the High Court to stall and to quash the ECIR and all consequential proceedings. The court, after due consideration, refused to grant the relief sought and upheld the authority of the Enforcement Directorate to continue its investigation.

The Telangana High Court has directed the state government and the GHMC to restore footpaths to their original condition in the Baghlingampally area and across Hyderabad. The court directed them for strict enforcement against encroachments of footpaths and roads.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the High Court also ordered the authorities to submit a compliance report before the Registry of the High Court within three months from receipt of the order, confirming implementation of the court’s directions.

“The civic authorities appear to act only when there is an order from the court or when the issue receives media attention. Once the immediate pressure subsides, the encroachments tend to reappear, which clearly reflects a lack of sustained enforcement,” Justice Shravan Kumar remarked

The court noted that the authorities must not discharge their statutory obligations in an event-based or reactive manner; the enforcement must be continuous, routine, and effective to ensure that public spaces remain free from illegal occupation. The court also directed the GHMC to conduct an inquiry against officers who failed to implement prior directions of the courts with regard to illegal encroachments.

The judge issued these directions while dismissing a writ petition filed by a property owner of the MIG flats at Baghlingampally that challenged the demolition notice issued by the GHMC against unauthorised constructions allegedly occupying common areas and public footpaths.

After examining the material on record, including photographs and municipal documents, the court found that the petitioner had extended construction on to the footpath and was carrying on commercial activity in deviation from the sanctioned plan. The court noticed that footpaths were mostly occupied in that area.

The court also rejected the contention of the property owner that payment of commercial property tax legitimized the construction. The court clarified that assessment and collection of tax did not confer legality on unauthorised structures nor prevent authorities from taking demolition action in accordance with law.

The court expressing ire at the GHMC and department of municipal administration for not taking action despite the High Court and Supreme Court on several occasions repeatedly issuing directions to civic authorities to keep footpaths free from encroachments and ensure their usability for pedestrians.

Justice Kumar expressed concern that in several parts of Hyderabad, footpaths were either in a dilapidated condition or were extensively encroached upon by unauthorised commercial constructions, defeating their intended purpose. The judge said that due to the encroachments, pedestrians are often forced to walk on busy roads, thereby exposing themselves to traffic hazards.

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court on Thursday heard a petition filed by HCA former president A. Jaganmohan Rao, challenging the orders of the ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) that had disqualified him and declared Amarnath as president in his place.

Jaganmohan Rao’s counsel argued that the ombudsman had acted arbitrarily and beyond the scope of powers granted to it. On the matter of disqualification, counsel argued that a person could be disqualified from the association only after charges were framed in a court of law. In this case, an FIR was filed against Jaganmohan Rao on allegations of forgery of signature and another FIR on the misappropriation of funds at the HCA. No chargesheet was filed, he said.

Senior counsels A. Venkatesh, representing the HCA, and Parankusam Venugopal, representing Amarnath, raised objections over the maintainability of the writ petition, stating that the HCA was registered under the Public Societies Registration Act which says that society issues must be challenged before the civil court at the district level. They submitted that the Telangana High Court while granting bail to Jaganmohan Rao had clearly imposed the condition that he should not go to the premises of HCA or other cricket clubs. Under these circumstances, they said, how could Jaganmohan Rao ask for his continuation in the post.

Justice Renuka Yara after hearing the arguments said that the court would first hear the maintainability of the petition and adjourned the matter to February 18.