HC Dismisses Writs Seeking Registration of Agri Gold ‘Land’
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy Upholds State’s Decision to Deny Registration of Disputed Properties
Hyderabad: Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking registration of properties falling in the Agri Gold scam pool. Petitioner Sreedevi Karnati and her husband moved the High Court when the registration authorities refused to register the sale of properties in Kamsanpally, Rangareddy district, on the ground that they figured in the notified prohibited list.
The properties were allegedly purchased by the petitioners from authorised signatories of the management of Matangi Infra. The alleged original vendor is a a company in the Agri Gold group.
Officials concerned from Agri Gold and Matangi Infra informed the court that the transactions were based on forged documents that were created when the directors were in jail. It was also contended that there could not have been sale transactions as the properties were attached under the Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act.
Senior counsel B.S. Prasad, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that the stated properties were not specifically mentioned in the notification of attachment. Consequently, he argued that the registration authorities were legally bound to register and give effect to the commercial transaction between the vendor and the purchaser.
Senior counsel L. Ravichander, arguing contra, pointed out that all the properties of the companies were notified. He referred to a division bench judgment of the court which required the parties concerned or related to approach the special court at Eluru. He also argued that fraud vitiates any action and a public law remedy is not available to the petitioners.
Agreeing with the action of the state in refusing registration, the judge dismissed the writ pleas. Justice Bhaskar Reddy also said that the Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act provided for an effective alternative remedy and the High Court was not inclined to entertain such a writ petition.
