Pointing out that the petitioner had purchased the subject lands after issuance of land acquisition notification with regard to lands situated in Nanakramguda in Rangareddy district, which are part of Emaar properties scam case, a division bench of Telangana High Court refused to entertain the petition saying that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the notification. The bench, however, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the case.
In a similar petition where the petitioners have purchased the subject lands, which are also part of Emaar scam case, prior to issuance of land acquisition notification, another division bench of the court had recently issued notices to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana government and other authorities concerned for filing counter affidavit.
During the course of hearing of the petition filed by G Lakshmi Kumari seeking compensation for the land admeasuring 300 sq yards situated in Nanakramguda of Serilingampally mandal in Rangareddy district under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, along with other petitioners who have filed a similar petition before the court earlier, the bench headed by Chief Justice Hima Kohli had recently declined to entertain the plea by saying that the petitioner had no standing to challenge the land acquisition proceedings since the notification was issued by State for acquiring the subject land on July 17, 2002 and the date of its purchase by the petitioner from the original owner was June 13, 2003.
While permitting the petitioner to withdraw her case, the CJ bench granted her liberty to approach the authorities concerned to verify the status of the amounts deposited by the State towards compensation for acquisition of the subject land.Recently, another division bench headed by Justice MS Ramachandra Rao issued notices to AP and Telangana governments, APIIC, TSIIC, CBI, ED and Emaar for filing counter affidavit in the petition filed by K Hareesh and 80 others, seeking a re-conduct of the land acquisition process by paying compensation, rehabilitation and appropriate resettlement in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 2013 with regard to lands admeasuring 23 acres situated in Nanakramguda.
Petitioners’ counsel B Rachna Reddy told the court that the petitioners had purchased residential plots spread over about 23 acres of land situated at Nanakramguda from Kiran Krishna Real Estate and Construction Company in 1999 and later. In 2002, the then AP government had issued a notification with a proposal to acquire about 80 acres of land, including the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of development of new projects by APIIC. The petitioners were neither shown nor allotted alternate lands nor was their land exempted from acquisition as was done in the case of about 11 acres of land belonging to film actor late Vijaya Nirmala.
Entire land was primarily acquired to handover to a private builder from UAE called Emaar. The then State government had agreed that the developed lands would be allotted in favour of Emaar Hills Township Private Limited under an agreement entered into with the then APIIC. The petitioners have made several representations, but there is no response from the authorities concerned, she added.
After hearing the above submissions, the bench said that it would look into all aspects after filing of counter affidavits by the respondents, and posted the matter to February 8.