Telangana HC continues hearing on alleged irregularities in Nagaram land deals
The Telangana High Court continued hearing multiple writ petitions over alleged illegal mutations of government and Bhoodan lands in Nagaram village, Rangareddy district. Several IAS and IPS officers are named in the petitions, which allege improper land transfers.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday continued hearing a batch of writ petitions relating to alleged irregularities in the allotment and registration of land in Nagaram village of Maheshwaram mandal, Rangareddy district.
These lands, situated in Survey Nos. 181, 182, 194, and 195, have come under scrutiny following claims that portions of the area were Bhoodan or government land that were illegally mutated and transferred in the names of several serving and retired IAS and IPS officers. The High Court had earlier issued interim directions restraining any further transactions or record mutations pertaining to the said lands, and directed that they be kept in the “prohibited list” until further orders.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Additional Advocate General T. Rajanikanth Reddy informed the court that the State was open to instituting a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Bhoodan land matters across Telangana if the Court so directed. However, he strongly opposed the idea of a probe limited to the present case, describing the petitioners’ claim as being rooted in a “private cause” rather than any larger public interest.
The petitions before the court include a prayer for an investigation into the transfer of land in Survey Nos. 194 and 195 of Nagaram village to various bureaucrats, including Naveen Mittal, Principal Secretary for Revenue, and other high-ranking officials. Senior Counsel P. Sri Raghuram, appearing for a group of respondent officers, argued that the land purchased by them did not fall within Bhoodan allocations and that the petitioners had shifted their claims mid-way, initially calling it Bhoodan land and later government land. He contended that the petitioners lacked locus standi and failed to present any credible material to justify the reliefs sought under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“Prohibitory orders from constitutional courts must rest on legally enforceable rights, which are absent here,” he submitted, urging the Court to vacate the earlier restraint. Notably, the petitioners, one of whom, Vaditya Ramulu, claims ownership of 10.17 acres through inheritance, have also sought a direction to the State to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the 1952 Act to investigate the tampering of land records and alleged misuse of authority by revenue officials.
As one of the counsels for the petitioners was absent, a proxy advocate sought an adjournment, which was granted. The matter is now posted for further hearing on Thursday.
