Live
- How technology is redefining fans and heaters
- Indian cement industry poised for robust recovery in 2nd half of FY25
- Which Blood Sugar Tests Reveal Your Risk for Diabetes?
- RRR documentary ’Beyond and Behind’ set for theatrical release
- Malaika Arora continues to reign as fitness icon at 50
- Diljit Dosanjh Reacts to Maharashtra's Advisory at Mumbai Concert: "I Won’t Bow"
- Dil Raju confirms benefit shows for ‘Game Changer’
- ‘Pushpa 2’ makes a historic success with ₹1508 Crore gross worldwide
- Celebrations all around
- Kiran Abbavaram looks stylish in ‘Dilruba’, set for release in Feb 2025
Jamuna Hatcheries seeks suspension of notice on land encroachment
Telangana High Court
Orders reserved on petition filed by Eatala Nithin Reddy, director
Hyderabad: Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Friday "reserved" orders in the writ petition filed by Eatala Nithin Reddy, one of the directors of Jamuna Hatcheries Pvt Ltd, Pudur village, Medchal mandal, Malkajgiri district.
The petitioner, who is the son of Eatala Rajender, BJP MLA, running a poultry business in Achampet village, Masaipet mandal of Medak district is aggrieved by the notices dated June 25 and May 6, 2021 issued by the tahsildar of Masaipet mandal, for alleged encroachment of three acres of government land in survey no 130 in Achampet.
Desai Prakash Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that the then joint collector adjudicated the dispute of total 18.35 acres in survey no. 130 on October 25, 2017, and directed the tahsildar to record three acres out of the total 18.35 acres in the name of K Sathayanrayana Rao in 2017 which was implemented by the tahsildar on April 22, 2018. Nithin Reddy purchased the land from Satyanarayana under a registered sale deed.
The Special GP informed the court that a survey of the entire land was undertaken and 18.35 acres was taken over by the government in 1990 itself. The possession was taken in 1995 by issuing land ceiling proceedings.
The government handed over the assigned lands to landless poor. The claim of the petitioner that he purchased three acres from one of the assignees Satyanarayana was rejected.
The Special GP averred before the court that the petitioner cannot purchase assigned land from the assignees in gross violation of rules in vogue and cannot knock the door of the HC under Article 226, seeking remedy. The petitioner ought to have impleaded the assignees as party to the petition, who are the real affected parties, which he has not done. One of the assignees has complained against the petitioner, he submitted before the court.
Justice Sudheer Kumar questioned the petitioner's counsel as to why the petitioner has not impleaded the assignees as party to the petition as the government has allotted the land to landless poor.
Reddy informed the court that a similar writ petition was filed in 2021 by Nithin Reddy challenging similar notice, which was heard by Justice B Vijaysen Reddy. The judge had directed the State to give a personal hearing to the petitioner to present their case, serve copy of the complaint given by the assignee along with the survey report prepared by the district collector to the petitioner.
The senior counsel informed the court that the State has not implemented the order of Justice Vijaysen Reddy passed in May 2021, which tantamount to contempt.
The Advocate-General informed the judge that a survey is being carried out to identify government lands scattered in different survey numbers and also to localise the lands. The survey which was carried out by the district collector is a preliminary one.
