IPS, IAS officers challenge single judge order on ‘Bhoodan land'
1
2
Hyderabad: A group of senior IAS and
IPS officers
, along with their spouses, approached the Telangana HC Tuesday seeking a stay on a single judge's order that flagged their residential plots in Nagaram village in Rangareddy district as Bhoodan land.
The officers, who were served notices by the court earlier, argued that the land was lawfully purchased and not part of any Bhoodan endowment, as alleged. It can be recalled, the single judge heard a petition filed by Birla Mallesh of Maheswaram mandal and directed the state authorities to keep the land in survey numbers 181, 182, 194 and 195 under the prohibition list until further orders.
IPS officers Mahesh Bhagwat, Soumya Mishra, Swathi Lakra, Rekha Sharaf, wife of Umesh Sharaff, Tarun Joshi, Renu Goyal, wife of Jitender Goyal, and BK Rahul Hegde, along with Rahul Busireddy, son of former IAS officer and former TGPSC chairman B Janardhan Reddy, filed the pleas questioning the single judge order that termed the land as Bhoodan land.
They contended that this is a ryotwari land which they bought from the rightful owners. Citing an order from the Bhoodan board, they said land in survey number 194 is not being claimed by the board, and they bought land that fell within the purview of this survey number.
Businessman V Goutam Reddy, another recipient of HC notice, also filed an appeal against the single judge order.
The single judge had ordered notices to several officials, including principal secretary of revenue Navin Mittal, Rangareddy district former collector Amoy Kumar and several private persons. While police are already probing into some of the issues pertaining to this land, the HC in its order sought to know the stand of the CBI and ED on the plea of the petitioner seeking a deeper probe into the issue.
The bureaucrats and their spouses said in their pleas that the single judge went beyond the contents of the petition and sought a stay on his order. The case is likely to come up for hearing in a day or two.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
OSBC seeks judicial probe into arrest of senior advocate
Cuttack: Odisha State Bar Council (OSBC) has demanded a judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts behind the arrest of a senior advocate by Balasore police for allegedly misbehaving with a woman IAS probationer. Purusottam Das, a 70-year-old advocate, was arrested on Tuesday after IAS probationer Shamal Kalyanrao Bhagat filed a complaint at Sahadevkhunta police station on June 7. OSBC demanded the judicial inquiry in a memorandum to chief minister Mohan Charan Majhi on Friday. It also demanded immediate action against the inspector in-charge of Sahadevkhunta police station and Bhagat. In the memorandum, OSBC chairman Sitanshu Mohan Dwibedy said, "The OSBC has also unanimously resolved that if no action will be taken within 10 days from the date of receipt of this communication, the council will decide further course of action..." Dwibedy claimed that though Balasore Bar Association had requested the SP to intervene and direct the IIC to register information given by Das, no steps have been taken till date. OSBC is the apex statutory body for more than 180 affiliated bar associations in the state. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
HC grants conditional relief to IPS officer in central deputation row
1 2 Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday provided conditional relief to senior IPS officer Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye, who challenged his central deputation order that would have demoted him from inspector general (IG) to deputy IG. The vacation bench of Justices A K Mohapatra and M S Raman directed Gajbhiye to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) within 10 days with a certified copy of the HC order. The bench also mandated CAT to deliver its final decision within 10 days of filing. The controversy arose when the ministry of home affairs on Dec 6 last year ordered Gajbhiye's appointment as DIG in CRPF, a rank below his current position of IG (communications) in Cuttack. State govt subsequently issued a notification on Dec 12, confirming his deputation. Gajbhiye approached the HC after CAT failed to pronounce its judgment within the stipulated three weeks following the May 9 hearing. Senior advocate Subir Palit, representing Gajbhiye, cited the CAT (Practice) Rules, 1993, which mandate judgment delivery within three weeks of reservation. In his petition, Gajbhiye argued that his demotion would place him under officers junior to him, including those from the 2006 regular recruitment batch currently serving as IGs in the Union govt. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Investire è più facile che mai BG SAXO Scopri di più Undo He emphasised that while pay protection might be available, it cannot justify posting at a lower rank, affecting dignity, facilities and command responsibilities. The court's order also specified that if Gajbhiye approaches either the Union or state govt seeking a post matching his seniority and rank, authorities must consider it independently and respond within 10 days, following existing rules. Deputy solicitor general Prasanna Kumar Parhi and additional govt advocate U C Behera had objected to the petition, arguing that the matter should have been first raised before the tribunal. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Hindu
17 hours ago
- The Hindu
Deep-rooted conspiracy in Nagaram land transactions: ED to HC
The ongoing investigation into the alleged fraudulent sale of Bhoodan lands as private lands in Nagaram village of Maheshwaram mandal in Ranga Reddy district suggested that there was a 'deep-rooted conspiracy' and 'use of forged documents', the Enforcement Directorate (ED) said. In a counter affidavit filed before the Bench of Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court in a writ petition seeking probe into 'Bhoodan land fraud', the ED officials said that manipulation of records maintained by officials at Tahsil, Mandal, District and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration offices resulted in alienation of government land. 'The investigation is on and there is a possibility that some more facts may emerge regarding the role of the said persons and also Government officials,' the counter affidavit by ED Hyderabad Assistant Director Gajaraj Singh Thakur stated. The ED informed the HC that they had recorded the statement of writ petitioner Birla Mallesh under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and stating that the petitioner revealed certain facts related to lands under survey no. 194 of Nagaram village. The ED officer informed the HC that the complaint of Mr. Mallesh was forwarded to the Telangana DGP under Section 66 of the PMLA on November 8, 2024. However, there was no response from the DGP office till date in the matter, the affidavit stated. No action under PMLA was initiated by the ED relating to lands under survey nos. 194 and 195 of Nagaram village, as no case was registered by any police station. Following a private complaint lodged by one Dastagir Shareef, a court referred case was registered against Khaderunnisa and others by the Maheshwaram police of the Rachakonda Commissionerate. Based on this, the ED issued an Enforcement Case Information Report pertaining to fraudulent transactions over lands in survey no. 181 and 182, the affidavit said. No ECIR was issued relating to lands under survey nos. 194 and 195. The writ petitioner Mallesh alleged that some senior IAS and IPS officers purchased lands in Nagaram villages under these survey numbers. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy issued notices to the senior bureaucrats directing them to file their respective counter affidavits. The officers moved the division bench seeking a direction to stay the single judge's order. The division bench, however, instructed them to file their objections and responses before the single judge.
