Defence authorities wants better deal
State offers 150 acres in RR in exchange for 148 encroached land in city
Hyderabad: Nearly 148 acres of defence land have been encroached in Hyderabad and Secunderabad and a solution is unlikely soon.
With land becoming a scarce commodity in the twin cities (just about 60 acres of open land is available), the state government has offered to provide 150 acres of contiguous land to defence authorities in Ranga Reddy, in exchange for the encroached land.
However, a multitude of hurdles exist in the path of this land exchange. The defence authorities deem the exchange an unfair proposition.
Defence Estate Officer A. Shekhar Babu said, “The encroached land in twin cities is much more valuable than the 150 acres on offer in Ranga Reddy district.
According to rules, if defence land is to be transferred to some authority, it should be in exchange for land of equal value. So, as per the equal value rule, the land to be given in exchange in RR district should be of larger area than 150 acres.”
Another issue raised by the defence authorities is that many portions of the 150 acres in RR district are assigned lands.
If such assigned lands are transferred to the defence authorities, they might create problems in the future, not just legal but also the issue of civilian installations popping up in between military installations.
The Defence Estate Officer said that this issue of assigned lands has already been brought to the notice of Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao and he
has acknowledged the same.
Defence lands, which have been encroached upon in the twin cities, include various types of lands that might come under the Secunderabad Cantonment Board or even under the direct authority of the Indian Army or other ministry of defence establishments.
More than 1,500 applications were received by the state government for land regularisation from those encroaching on defence lands.
Mr Babu said that the MRO of Trimulgherry had sent a request for regularisation of encroached defence lands, to which the answer was a strict no.