KCR orders probe

Published by Metro India News on September 19, 2016 00:38:38 AM

The noose is tightening around the alleged irregularities committed by Araku MP Kothapalli Geetha who one time served as the Deputy Collector in Ranga Reddy district.

Kothapalli Geetha’s alleged land grab

She has been embroiled in controversies surrounding land grab running into hundreds of crores by creating forged documents in the most lucrative and sought after lands in the Financial District of Raidurg in Serilingampally Mandal. The Chief Minister K. Chandrasekahr Rao on Sundday had ordered an inquiry into the alleged land grab purported to have been committed by Araku MP which had resulted in hundreds of crores of rupees loss to exchequer.

Ranga Reddy district collector Raghunandan Rao has been asked to submit a report after reviewing the situation pertaining to land grab activities in Serilingampally Mandal. Kotahpalli Geetha’s stint as Deputy Collector in Ranga Reddy district has come in for sharp focus since the modus operandi that she had instituted within the levers of Revenue Department was legion to say the least. It was learnt that she was instrumental in effecting the transfer of then Medak district Collector Seshadri who is now serving at Prime Minister’s Office in New Delhi.

A probe into the dealings would reveal startling revelations about her alleged role in sequestering property by creating special purpose vehicles (SPVs) with a view to grab the land. Forgery, fabrication, botched revenue records, intrigure.… the elements of institutionalized crime in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) area sent shockwaves among the hapless owners of small land parcels brooding over the safety of their holdings.

In the thick of controversy was Araku MP Kothapalli Geetha, whose claim over the ownership of 53 acres of land in the most sought after Raidurg village in Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy district alleges that Government of Telangana has forcibly ‘robbed’ her of the land. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) took possession of the land last week through Revenue department upon which Knowledge City is slated to come about.

The issue gets curious from the stand point of lawmaker who cried foul and tapped the doors of Governor ES L Narasimham and other powers that be to seek a hearing. It was alleged that PRK Rao and P. Geetha Rao alias Kothapalli Geetha and their front companies are claiming right on the land in survey No 83/2 through fraudulent sale deeds executed by Bhavana Co-op Housing Society Limited represented by its secretary S. Raj kumar based on the fabricated and forged agreement of sale deed dated 19-3-1982 and validated by the then District Registrar, Ranga Reddy district in file no 8309/AR/2006 dated 11.9.2006.

It was alleged that the said PRK Rao on 11-9-2006 styling himself as the purchaser of the said fabricated and forged agreement of sale submitted before the then District Registrar , Ranga Reddy district and requested the said agreement to be validated under the Stamp Act. It was alleged that the then District Registrar even without verifying whether the said agreement can be validated in terms of rules and guidelines framed by the department like verifying whether the Non-judicial stamp paper on which the agreement engrossed is genuine or not , whether the subject land attracts provisions of ULC Act, whether the executants are alive and will attest to the veracity of the agreement of sale, went ahead with validating the said agreement of sale on the same day on 11-9-2006 without even collecting the sufficient stamp duty.

Armed with forged and fabricated agreement of sale, PRK Rao styling himself as the Secretary of Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Limited executed two sale deeds in the year 2006, one on 12-9-2006 vide document No 4878/2008 in favour of Konetiraya Educational Society (the front society of the then District Registrar, R.R.District) for an extent of Ac 6-00 guntas in Sy. No 83/2.

It was alleged that having realized that they can gain wrongfully, much more if the land in Sy. No 83/2 is registered in favour of the names of the front companies, P.Geetha Rao or their kin as Directors, namely Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Visweswara Properties Pvt Ltd, Lokankara Realtors Pvt Ltd, Visweswara Investments Pvt Ltd , Jagadisa Realtors Pvt Ltd, Ihsana Condominiums Pvt Ltd most of them having their registered address at 4C, Founta Plaza, Daba Gardens, Vishakapatnam.

While rival contentions are at variance with each other, what are adding to the fuzziness were law makers being dragged into the economic offences that won’t go well in a democratic set up. In the eye of the storm is The land in Sy No 83 Raidurg (Panmaktha) village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district is of total extent of Ac 525-39 guntas and is a patta land belonging to the pattadars Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and ten others from prior to 1950.

With the advent of the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act and the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULC Act) the said land went through many proceedings under the said Acts and finally by the year 2008, land of extent AC 424-13 guntas (which is allotted by the Government to Hyderabad Knowledge City ) in Sy No 83/2 was declared as the retainable land of the pattedars. The land of extent Ac 99-07 guntas in Sy no 83/2 which was originally declared surplus and taken possession by the State in the year 1976 under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act was reverted back to the pattadars in the year 1990 so that the land be submitted under the provisions o fthe ULC Act.

But due to various legal proceedings the said land of extent Ac 99-07 guntas in Sy no 83/2 was not computed under the ULC Act until the repeal of the ULC Act was adopted by the State on 27-3-2008. The State’s contention is that an extent of Ac 46-20 guntas out of the extent of Ac 99-07 guntas in Sy No 83/2 was taken possession of by the State under section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 25-3-2008 i.e., two days before the adoption of the Repeal of the ULC Act by the State.

Aggrieved by this, pattadars approached the High Court at Hyderabad which struck down the taking of possession of Ac 46-20 guntas on 18-6-2014 in W.P.No 8543/2009. The State challenged the same vide W.A. No 420/2016 before the High Court at Hyderabad which had passed interim directions of suspending the said judgment while ordering that, “the State shall protect the land of extent Ac 46-20 guntas out of Ac 99-07 guntas in Sy. No 83/2 and that the State shall not create any third party rights in the said property without permission of the Court,’ and they said writ appeal is pending before the Court.

The balance land of extent AC 52-27 guntas is continuously in the possession of the pattadars right from 25-4-1990 till today and the same is evident from the entries in the pattadar and khabjadar column of the pahanies (revenue records). When contacted, Araku MP Kothapalli Geetha told Metro India on Thursday that certain individuals carrying forged documents trying to grab the land which was legally possessed by her family owned companies.

She questioned why those who claim ownership of the land in controversy proceed through a court of law? She rubbished all the allegations propagated by a set of private litigants and challenged them to prove their ownership. She sought even an enquiry into the land dealings by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)!! It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had upheld in 2010 that the state government's claim that it owned 424 acres of prime Raidurg lands worth about Rs 10,000 crore.

The Supreme Court order has put to rest litigation that has been going on for a decade-and-a-half and also gave a boost to the state government’s efforts to mobilise resources through sale of government lands. Several IT and industry majors such as ITC group of hotels, DLF and Salarpuria also got a breather since their investment on the Raidurg lands had been stuck till now.

The government had already auctioned 105 acres and got Rs 2, 019 crore through the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, but companies which bid for the land could not proceed further because of the uncertainty over the ownership.