Special court issues notices in Satyam scam-linked Janwada land dispute
HYDERABAD: A special court here on Monday issued notices to the accused in the Satyam Computers fraud case and officials concerned on a fresh petition alleging fake and fabricated land mutations linked to transactions in Janwada village.
The court was hearing an implead petition filed by Abhinav Alladi in connection with the Satyam Computers scam, seeking that his statement on specific land transactions be recorded as part of the proceedings.
Claiming to be an intervening informant with an interest in the property, the petitioner alleged that substantial proceeds of crime generated from the Satyam Computers fraud were diverted to acquire large extents of immovable property in and around Hyderabad. He submitted that while the Directorate of Enforcement had examined several such transactions, certain acquisitions — particularly land at Janwada village in Shankarpally mandal — were not adequately scrutinised.
According to the petition, land parcels that were liable to be notified as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were left out due to alleged mischief.
The petitioner alleged that the land was originally recorded in the names of Madan Gopal and Shyamlal in Khasra and pahani records from the 1950s to the 1990s, but was later fraudulently mutated in favour of accused persons without following due legal process.
He claimed that about 3.1 acres in Survey No. 311/1, Account No. 60699, at Janwada, along with extensive parcels in Survey Nos. 306 to 316, were acquired through purportedly legitimate transactions by Shatabisha company and its director, who were allegedly linked to Satyam Computers.
The petition further alleged a conspiracy involving accused persons, public servants and political functionaries to manipulate revenue records and route proceeds of crime through benami transactions, resulting in multiple illegal transfers of land involving significant monetary value. The petitioner also stated that he had entered into agreements with the original owners and paid substantial consideration, claiming to be a victim of the alleged fraud.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, Immaneni Rama Rao, the court directed issuance of notices to all respondents concerned and posted the matter to January 27 for further consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
