HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the state government not to take into cognizance the report submitted by the Medak District Collector that former Medical and Health Minister Eatala Rajender had encroached 66 acres of land in two villages in Masaipet Mandal in the district, violating provisions of several Acts.
The court gave the direction after a hearing on a petition filed by Eatala's wife Jamuna and their son Nitin, representing Jamuna Hatcheries, to issue orders restraining the DGP, DG Vigilance and Medak District Collector from taking coercive action against them. The court also issued an interim direction to the government not to intervene in the business activities of the company.
The court said that by not giving an opportunity to Jamuna Hatcheries to be heard, the officials had given a go-by to the principle of natural justice. The court also found fault with officials for not issuing notices to the company before undertaking the survey of the land in the possession of the company.
The petitioners pleaded that the survey done by the officials was illegal as no notices were served on them seeking their explanation. The officials, without their permission, had entered the premises of the factory and set up notice boards that the land belongs to the government.
The High Court sought an explanation from the government why it had to get a survey done in a record time of two days and wondered if the officials sat in their car and completed the work. The court pointed out that any inquiry or survey has to be done in accordance with the rules and any disregard for them should be eschewed. They should not use backdoor methods to complete the work quickly, it added.
The court asked the officials to act responsibly and do their work by giving enough time to the petitioners to defend themselves. It ruled that the government should not take any action basing on the collector's report which was based on a survey done on May 1 and 2 said and wanted a detailed report submitted to it also. It also issued notices to the government.
The advocate general sought a direction to the petitioner to cooperate with the government in doing the survey to which the court replied that if they did not, there were procedures, in accordance with the law, that could be followed to get their cooperation.