Etala kin get HC relief in Jamuna Hatcheries case

HYDERABAD: In a relief to the Etala family and a setback to the state government, the Telangana High Court issued interim orders to revenue officials not to interfere with the possession of land, structures and other establishments situated in 3 acres of land in Survey No. 130/A of Achampet Village, Masaipet mandal, Medak district, belonging to Jamuna Hatcheries, which is owned by former minister Etala Rajender‘s family members.

The interim orders will prevail till August 1, 2022. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar issued the interim orders in a petition filed by Etala Nitin Reddy and Etala Jamuna, who requested the court to restrain any authority acting at the behest of the state government or on their own behalf from interfering in any manner whatsoever with their peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of their private property.

The petition was filed as the revenue authorities were handed over the land of Jamuna Hatcheries, stating that it was assigned land and they were being transferred illegally to other than original assignees.

However, after the perusal of the panchanamas placed before the court by the government, which clearly stated that the possession of the subject land was a matter of impugned order, the said land was handed over to the beneficiaries on June 29. The court also pointed that it was also relevant to note that in terms of Section 4A of the Act, 1977, any person aggrieved by any order passed by the mandal revenue officer and the Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1977 may avail the remedy of appeal before the revenue divisional officer within 90 days. But in this case, even before the remedy of appeal was availed by Jamuna Hatcheries or other steps were taken, the state government claimed to have taken over the possession of the land.

Thus, it was observed that not only an order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, but further steps were also shown to have been taken in undue haste.

In the circumstances, the court was of the view that pending further orders, the interests of the petitioners were required to be protected and safeguarded.