High Court questions Telangana over Keshava Rao land regularisation
HYDERABAD: The High Court on Wednesday asked the Telangana government how land in Banjara Hills could be regularised at ₹350 per sq yard for the family members of former MP and government adviser K Keshava Rao, and whether similar rates were being applied to ordinary applicants under the Layout Regularisation Scheme.
Court flags flaws in GO, seeks review
The bench said the government order appeared to contain errors and directed the administration to review it and correct any discrepancies. If the state failed to act, the court said it would be compelled to intervene. The matter was adjourned to January 7.
The petition was filed by Gadila Raghuvir Reddy of Kondapaka in Siddipet district, challenging GO 56, issued on May 23, 2023, which regularised plots belonging to Venkateshwara Rao and Gadwal Vijayalakshmi, son and daughter of Keshava Rao. He alleged that land was also regularised for Kavita Rao in violation of norms.
Petitioner says state lost crores in revenue
The petitioner’s counsel Shreyas Le Reddy argued that in one of Hyderabad’s most expensive areas, the government had regularised 1,161 sq yards at ₹2,500 per sq yard and another 425 sq yards at ₹350 per sq yard, although the official market value was ₹60,000 per sq yard. This, he said, caused a loss of several crore rupees to the state exchequer.
State cites prior connection, special request
Appearing for the government, Additional Advocate General Imran Lakhan said the beneficiaries had approached the finance department with a representation, following which a special GO was issued. He said one of the plots already had a power connection, and the regularisation was done based on the market value applicable at the time the connection was taken.
Hearing the arguments, the bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin said a GO must apply uniformly and questioned how a government order could be framed to favour specific individuals. It also observed that even in slum areas there is a limit to how low the regularisation value can be. The court said adopting 1998 prices was not reasonable.
