HC stops Telangana govt from taking over IDPL land till June 22

Division bench directs Telangana government not to take coercive steps for takeover of 891.38 acres allotted to IDPL until June 22 hearing before single judge.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government not to take any coercive steps regarding the takeover of land allotted to Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) for industrial purposes until further hearing in the matter on June 22.

The direction came while hearing a house motion appeal filed by IDPL challenging the interim orders of a single judge relating to the disputed land measuring 891.38 acres.

According to the case details, the district collector had issued orders on January 27, 2008, directing the tahsildar to take possession of the 891.38 acres allotted to IDPL and hand it over to APIIC, now known as TGIIC. Subsequently, on February 6, 2008, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) issued orders directing withdrawal of the collector’s proceedings.

A division bench comprising Justice EV Venugopal and Justice GM Mohiuddin heard the matter.

IDPL’s arguments

Appearing for IDPL, Additional Solicitor General P Narasimha Sharma argued that the state government had originally allotted the land in 1961 for industrial purposes and formally transferred 891.38 acres in 1994.

He submitted that industrial activity was still continuing on the land and that the property was being used strictly for industrial purposes.

The ASG further alleged that soon after the single judge passed interim orders staying implementation of the BIFR directions, officials of the Cyberabad municipal administration attempted to take possession of the land by putting up banners at the site.

He contended that the land continued to remain under IDPL’s possession and accused the government of claiming possession only on paper, based on the collector’s proceedings.

Govt’s arguments

Representing the state government, Additional Advocate General Tera Rajanikanth Reddy, along with senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy appearing for TGIIC, argued that BIFR had ceased to exist and its orders no longer held legal validity.

They contended that BIFR had no authority to issue such directions and that the disputed orders had been passed without issuing notice to the state government.

The state also argued that even if the collector’s proceedings had been stayed, such protection would remain valid only for seven years and that the period had already expired. It was further submitted that both BIFR and AAIFR had since been abolished.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the division bench observed that the main petition filed by the state government regarding the IDPL lands was still pending before the single judge.

The court said no action should be taken for the takeover of the land based on the interim orders while the petition remained under consideration.

The bench clarified that it was not examining the merits of the dispute at this stage and noted that the matter was scheduled for hearing before the single judge on June 22.

It directed that the issue be decided expeditiously and ordered the state government not to initiate any steps for taking possession of the land until completion of the hearing.

The appeal was accordingly closed.