TELANGANA High Court. | Photo Credit: Hind
On Friday, the Theangana High Court abolished the assignment of 3.7 hectares of government land, carried out by the then BRS government in 2021, to the international arbitration and mediation center, which created a video of credibility made by the then chief judge of India NV Raman.
However, the bench of Justices K. Lakshman and K. Sujan, pronounced at a dose of two petitions for pillar questioning soil, confirmed the decision of the government, which grants £ 3, providing operating expenditures on it and determining it as an arbitrary center for all state professional governments. The judges, however, explained that the TELANGANY government should obtain IAMC accounts that the main accountant (audit) or other relevant officer audited.
The bench also said that “any release of funds after five years, as stated in the memorand of the IAMC and the State Government in 2021, should be subject to IAMC”. The petitioners claimed that the government had misused its power and caused significant loss of the Treasury by assigning 3.70 acres of land in the main locality, such as Raidurg of SerlingPamly in the Rangareddy district, which is the center of IT company, according to them, there is no provision that would allow government land without costs.
They also detained that the allocation of land without IAMC and financial assistance included protectionism and possible abuse of the allocated land. They also stated that in trust that he could sell the same, there was any arbitrary and there was no justifiable public purpose in allowing this land. In response to these statements, the state government and IAMC said that the country was assigned under Section 25 of the TELANGANA Act, 1317 Fasli and the assignment was legally justified.
Monitoring that “land allocation and distribution of state larges cannot be carried out without costs,” she said that governments should ensure that farewell to the natural resources that are entrusted to them should be adequately compensated. “Free land allocation cannot be justified if the purpose of the allocation is greater and such assignment is an institution or a person who does not earn any profit,” he said.
The bench pointed out that “the behavior of the government in the allocation of land was disproportionately hastily”. The holding certificate was issued by IAMC “even formulation and communicating the conditions of allocation”. “Such hasty decisions do not have a good way to enforce power in violation of the procedure,” the judgment said. Discrele power should not be not only fair and transparent, but should also be considered fair and transparent, the bench said.
The bench said that land allocation falls under the government policy and said that the lady was not. 126 issued by the Government allocating the IAMC land contrary to the provisions of theft Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) of state land and rules of income from the 1975 land. The assignment was also contrary to GO 571, which contained uniform instructions and represented “government policy of assigning land”, said.
Published – 27th June 2025 9:29
