Justice league: Telangana High Court reserves orders in Jamuna Hatcheries plea

The Special Government Pleader informed the court that a survey of the entire property had been conducted and that 18.35 acres of land belonged to the government.

Published: 02nd July 2022 04:29 AM  |   Last Updated: 02nd July 2022 04:29 AM   |  A+A-

Telangana High Court (File Photo | EPS)

Telangana High Court (File Photo | EPS)

By Express News Service

TELANGANA: The Telangana High Court on Friday reserved its orders in a petition filed by Jamuna Hatcheries Pvt Limited, taking exception to the notices issued by Masaiapet mandal tahsildar, Medak district, alleging encroachment of government land. The petition was filed by Jamuna Hatcheries director E Nithin Reddy, who is the son Eatala Rajender, BJP MLA. The petitioner, who operates a poultry business in Achampet village, Masaipet mandal of Medak district stated that he was displeased with the notices issued by the Tahsildar of Masaipet mandal to him that he had encroached three acres of land located in Survey No. 130 in Achampet village.

Senior attorney Desai Prakash Reddy, who represented the petitioner, informed the court that on October 25, 2017, the then Joint Collector resolved a dispute involving 18.35 acres of land in Survey No 130 and ordered the Tahsildar, Masaipet, to record three acres of land in K Satayanarayana Rao’s name out of the total of 18.35 acres guntas.

On April 22, 2018, the Tahsildar carried out this order, and the petitioner Nithin Reddy purchased the said land from K Satyanarayana under a registered sale deed. Contradicting Prakash Reddy’s claims, the Special Government Pleader informed the court that a survey of the entire property had been conducted and that 18.35 acres of land belonged to the government which later gave it to the landless poor. The petitioner however claimed that he had acquired three acres of property from one of the assignees, K Satyanarayana, but the government rejected this claim.

The petitioner cannot acquire assigned land from the assignee which is a flagrant violation of the norms of the day, and they cannot also approach the High Court under Article 226 in search of relief, Special GP further averred. The petitioner should have included the assignees, who are the actual persons impacted, as parties to the writ petition, but he has not done so, and one of the assignees has filed a complaint against the petitioner.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp