HC dismisses two PILs seeking CBI probe into allotment of 850 acres of govt land to IMG Bharata

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court’s division bench of CJ Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao on Wednesday “dismissed” the two PILs--one filed by ABK Prasad and the other by city advocate T Sriranga Rao, seeking a direction to the CBI to probe the allotment of 850 acres of precious government land by the then AP government to IMG Academies Bharata Pvt Ltd in a non-transparent manner at a very low cost to build, develop, own and operate sports academies.

The CJ bench said the PILs suffer from delay; the petitioners have not made out any case for grant of direction to the CBI to probe the MoU sale agreement of land entered by the government with IMG BAPL.

The court said the petitioners filed PILs with political rivalry and have not approached the court with clean hands as the Congress party leaders had already approached the HC in 2011 by way of writ seeking CBI probe into the land allotment, which was dismissed and even upheld by the Supreme Court. The PILs filed in 2012 are a second round of litigation.

The erstwhile AP government on August 9, 2003, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, had entered into an MOU with IMG ABPL which will train champions in various sports and agreed to sell 400 acres in survey no 25 of Kancha Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal, to the company to develop, build, own and operate sports academies; another parcel of 450 acres in survey No. 99/1 of Mamidipalli village, near Shamshabad airport to the company to enable it to build and operate sports academies.

The then AP government even executed a registered sale deed in favour of the company on February 10, 2004 on 400 acres in Kancha Gachibowli at mere Rs. 50,000/acre for a consideration of Rs. 2 crore.

The division bench said after the TDP government lost power in 2004 and the Congress was voted to power it issued GO 614 dated June 30, 2006 constituting a committee of officers to go into the circumstances leading to execution of MoU. The cabinet even passed an ordinance on November 20 cancelling the MoU.

The Congress government even issued GO 310 dated December 13, 2006, giving its consent for CBI probe but the then Joint Director, CBI Chennai, expressed its inability to take up the investigation on account of resource constraint and requested the government to conduct an inquiry at its level and refer the matter to them, if cognisable offence against certain officers is made. After the CBI didn’t give its consent, the then CM in 2007 ordered a probe into MoU by the CID, which probed and filed a report.

The division bench said after 850 acres was allotted to IMG ABPL Y S Vijayamma, the wife of the then CM YS Rajasekara Reddy, filed a writ aggrieved by the inaction of the TDP government as well as the CBI in not taking penal action against the N Chandrababu Naidu government which allotted 850 acres to the company, pleading that Chandrababu Naidu, by allotting the land to the company amassed disproportionate assets.

Vijayamma’s writ was dismissed by the division bench of AP HC on February16, 2012. This was even upheld by the SC vide order dated July 23, 2012.

The division bench in dismissing the plea for CBI probe on the ground that Vijayamma had already filed a writ which was dismissed; the SC also upheld the decision; the PILs seeking a direction to the CBI is the second round of litigation in courts. In the first round of litigation Vijayamma’ s writ has attained finality; there cannot be a second round of litigation in courts.

The division bench in its judgment further said Palvai Govardhan Reddy, MLA, even approached a lower court with a private complaint by impleading Chandrababu Naidu as respondent no.1 and the company’s director as respondent 7, which was heard by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad. It passed orders in 2004 dismissing it stating that the judge did not find any sufficient ground to refer the case for investigation.

When the private complaint was dismissed, Govardhan Reddy preferred a criminal revision petition No. 962/2004, which was heard by a single judge of the united AP HC and dismissed on April 26, 2006 stating that Cabinet had decided to allot 850 to the company. The Cabinet decision can’t be called as an offence; as no case was made out, the CRP was dismissed. The judge stated that he did not find any sufficient grounds to refer the matter for investigation as the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands; the petition in the lower court was filed on account of political rivalry.