- Officers who purchased land
- Four survey numbers… multiple complications
- Civil servants’ land fight
- Officials claim these are private patta lands
- Locals say no, these are Bhoodan and government lands
- EIPL bought illegal lands
- Senior officials gave approvals for construction and development
(REG Taskforce team): Bhoodan land in the state has been encroached upon. Thousands of acres of land have gone missing. Some of this land was even directly purchased by officers. In the combined Rangareddy district, there were a total of 21,939 acres of Bhoodan land. Out of this, 13,574 acres were assigned, but only 341 acres remain untouched for distribution. It is prohibited to carry out any transactions on the assigned land. However, some influential people bought these lands illegally. With the support of favourable officials, they succeeded in changing the ownership. Later, the land was converted from nalas (canals), obtained permissions from HMDA, and was sold as plots. There are allegations that hundreds of acres of Bhoodan land have vanished in this manner. It is clear that land encroachments occurred before 2017 and again after 2024.
In the Rangareddy district land scam involving Bhoodan lands, pressure is mounting on officials. Many victims have filed complaints with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the then Rangareddy Collector, Amoy Kumar. Subsequently, the ED conducted an investigation into the financial transactions related to these land dealings. The ED found evidence of several irregularities in the land transfers. It was sensational when the ED recommended registering a case against Amoy Kumar. The ED also interrogated the then RDO Venkatachary and Maheshwaram Tahsildar RP Jyothi regarding the illegal activities that took place during Amoy Kumar’s tenure as Collector. Particularly, the ED grilled officials over the alleged illegal allotment of 42 acres of government land in Survey No. 181 of Nagaram village, Maheshwaram Mandal, to a private party. The ED also studied the case details registered at Maheshwaram police station. It is reported that the ED recommended filing cases against the Tahsildar and RDO as well.
Clearance after 2017! There are allegations that Bhoodan lands were cleared only after 2017. Many instances have come to light where lands listed as Bhoodan or government lands in the restricted lists on the Dharani portal and the Stamps and Registration Department websites have been registered as plots after obtaining permissions from HMDA. All this is the result of manipulations by officials in the Revenue Department, HMDA, and the Stamps and Registration Department.
At that time, Tahsildars either did not properly scrutinise the records or, following orders from higher authorities, sent positive reports. As a result, Bhoodan lands were somewhat converted into pattas (land titles). Over these four years, hundreds of acres of land classified as government or Bhoodan land have been converted into pattas, but the exact figures will remain unknown without detailed abstracts. However, it is now known that some files previously recommended have recently been sent back with rejection reports.
Transactions using bogus numbers Fake survey numbers were created alongside the main survey numbers of Bhoodan lands to carry out extensive ownership transfers. For example, when a donor transfers a portion of their land to the government within a certain area, an additional number (a fake or “bye” number) is appended next to the main survey number, allowing for this transfer. Taking advantage of such situations, fake numbers were added for every transaction. Among those who purchased these lands were some ordinary people as well as some businessmen from Hyderabad. Once the registrations started, ventures gradually began on those lands. Agricultural lands were converted into non-agricultural lands, and real estate business also started.
Registrations without proper verificationAfter the implementation of the Dharani portal, which introduced the rule that registration and mutation should be completed simultaneously as soon as the application is filed—there was increased opportunity for Bhoodan lands to change hands. Since Dharani went live in 2020, some districts neglected to properly update and maintain the online list of prohibited lands. As a result, revenue officials registered Bhoodan lands in the ‘patta land’ window on the portal without minimal verification. Even though the classification column for some survey numbers clearly stated ‘Bhoodan patta,’ registrations were still carried out, indicating illegal activities.
Officers bought lands It’s not just one or two — as many as 27 civil servants are involved in a land dispute. They are accused of purchasing Bhoodan lands illegally. While the government claims it is investigating the matter, its actions seem like taking one step forward and four steps back. The government appears to be playing games with the civil servants to dodge accountability, and the land dispute remains unresolved.
In Rangareddy district’s Maheshwaram mandal, the Nagaram village lands controversy is tightly linked to high-ranking officials. Multiple complications have arisen around four survey numbers in the village. Cases have already been registered against several people, including IAS officer Amoy Kumar, concerning illegal transfers of Bhoodan lands in survey numbers 181 and 182.
Meanwhile, senior IAS and IPS officers have purchased lands in survey numbers 194 and 195, which locals claim are also Bhoodan lands. The locals have approached the High Court seeking to include these lands in the prohibited list. After notices were issued to the buyers, the IAS, IPS, and retired All India officials became concerned.
Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted raids on EIPL Construction Company, which is involved in illegal activities related to Bhoodan lands in survey numbers 181 and 182. It has now become a matter of discussion that senior IAS and IPS officers have handed over their lands in survey numbers 194 and 195 for development to this same company.
All of this is under the watchful eye of senior officials. The fact that these officers are giving their lands for development to a company that allegedly acquired Bhoodan lands through irregular means raises many suspicions. While senior officials claim that the lands in survey numbers 194 and 195 are not Bhoodan lands, there are emerging arguments that these lands are “Kancha” lands (uncleared lands) and that records have been altered in the Dharani portal. Given this situation, there is widespread interest in the report the state government is preparing to submit to the High Court.
Ready the villa.. In Nagaram village, a large number of IAS officers, IPS officers, and retired civil service officials have purchased lands in survey numbers 194 and 195. About 2 kilometres from these survey numbers, IAS and IPS officers working in Andhra Pradesh have also bought land and handed it over to EIPL Constructions for development of villas.Notably, even serving and retired IAS and IPS officers in the state have purchased lands in survey number 194 in their own names or their family members’ names and given them to EIPL Constructions for villa development.
A petition has been filed in the High Court alleging that these lands are Bhoodan or Kancha lands and that illegal proceedings were initiated to register them as patta lands. The petition also accuses senior officials of involvement in the irregularities.
In response, the judge has issued notices to 76 respondents, including more than 30 IAS and IPS officers and their family members. According to revenue records, senior officials claim that there are no Bhoodan lands in these survey numbers. However, after verifying old records and land registers, it appears these lands are Kancha patta lands.
Even if clarity is obtained that these are not patta lands, allegations of illegal transactions involving EIPL Constructions have become a serious issue for the senior officials.
The whole story is actually about Bhoodan lands! Although 42 acres of land under survey numbers 181 and 182 in Nagaram were notified as government land and included in the prohibited list, allegations have arisen that, under the orders of then Rangareddy Collector Amoy Kumar, Maheshwaram Tahsildar and some other officials illegally transferred it to private individuals.
Maheshwaram police have already registered a case in this matter, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also entered the investigation. During this process, senior IAS officer Amoy Kumar, other officials, buyers, intermediaries, and representatives of EIPL Construction were questioned.
Two months ago, these lands were again notified as Bhoodan lands, with orders issued by CCLA Naveen Mittal. Prior to this, the ED identified transactions involving benami dealings in the purchases of these lands. Raids were conducted in five areas of Hyderabad, and a large amount of cash and luxury vehicles were seized in Moinabad. Evidence suggests that 103 acres of Bhoodan land in Nagaram were illegally transferred during these raids.
Changes since then In Gandipet Mandal, in Vattinagulapalli, survey numbers 186, 187, 188, and 189, Bhoodan lands worth hundreds of crores, covering 29.27 acres, were assigned to whom and by whom? Whose names are these lands currently under? Who facilitated these purchases and sales? There is ongoing discussion about which Collector, RDO, and Tahsildar gave clearance to these Bhoodan lands. There is a demand to investigate what happened behind the scenes in handing over the most valuable lands to companies and influential leaders without protecting them.
In reality, these lands were granted in the names of benami holders (proxy holders) among the board members on June 12, 2006. A list of 60 beneficiaries was prepared. However, Rajendranagar RDO issued orders for land transfers on February 15, 2007, with order number ND/8616/2005. These 60 individuals then attempted to sell the said 29.27 acres.
In the midst of this confusion, records indicate that the Bhoodan board’s pattas were cancelled. Given this background, an investigation is needed to uncover what actually happened behind the powerful people gaining control of these lands.
Supreme Court’s surprise over alleged land irregularities
The High Court expressed astonishment over the involvement of several senior IAS and IPS officers, along with other high-ranking officials, in connection with Bhoodan land issues in survey numbers 181, 182, 194, and 195 in Nagaram village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy district.
The High Court noted serious allegations against these officials and pointed out that their positions could be misused for personal gains. Given these accusations, the court has directed the District Collector, Maheshwaram, and the LB Nagar Sub-Registrars to use their vigilance powers to include these lands in the prohibited list to protect public property.
Until further orders are issued, the court instructed that no encroachment or any transactions should take place involving these lands. Because senior officials are involved, the court refused to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition and ordered the registry to proceed accordingly.
Despite complaints lodged with senior government officials regarding irregularities on these lands, no action has been taken. Consequently, Birla Mallesh from Maheshwaram Mandal filed a petition in the High Court requesting a CBI and ED investigation into the matter.
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy took up the case for hearing on Thursday.
The senior advocate representing the petitioner, Ravichander, presented arguments stating: “There is involvement of senior IAS and IPS officers in these irregularities. Together with local police and revenue officials, they forged documents. They tampered with revenue records and illegally transferred lands. They bought these lands in their own names and in the names of family members. They obtained patta passbooks. Although details were sent to the Central Vigilance Commission in November last year, and again on March 8 this year to the CMO office and the Home Department’s Chief Secretary, no action has been taken. Complaints were also made to the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) and Home Ministry, but they have not acted. The petitioner, who exposed these irregularities, is under threat and needs protection.”
After hearing the arguments, Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy preliminarily examined the records and observed that the lands in survey numbers 181, 182, 194, and 195 in Nagaram clearly belong to the Bhoodan Board. “These lands can be allocated to the poor for agricultural use as per the donors’ wishes. Otherwise, the government can use them for public purposes. The lands are subject to Bhoodan Act provisions and can be inherited, but they cannot be alienated or transferred otherwise. Given the serious allegations against senior officials in the petition, there is a risk of misuse of authority for personal gain.”
The High Court, exercising its powers to protect social assets, ordered that until the petition is disposed of, these survey numbers’ lands should be included in the prohibited list. No changes, additions, or alienations shall be made on these lands until further orders. The court also directed that notices be issued to the respondents, including the Central and State Governments, Rangareddy District Collector, Bhoodan Board, CCLA, CBI, and ED, and that they file counter-affidavits.
Civil servants in court
The IAS and IPS officers filed a petition to stay the order issued by High Court Single Judge Justice Bhaskar Reddy, which directed that the Bhoodan lands be included in the prohibited list. However, the High Court refused to stay the Single Bench order.
Following this, officers including Mahesh Bhagwat, Swati Lakra, Soumya Mishra, Tarun Joshi, Rahul Hegde, and others filed an appeal petition against the Single Bench judgment. The officers’ lawyers requested the court to overturn the Single Bench order.
They argued that the Bhoodan lands have no connection with the officers’ lands. The Bhoodan lands are only in survey numbers 181 and 182, while the officers’ lands are in Nagaram survey number 194 covering 366 acres. The Single Bench judge did not consider this distinction and wrongly ordered the officers’ lands to be included in the prohibited lands list.
The opposing counsel, Ravi Chander, argued that these lands are not Bhoodan lands but government patta lands. He also suggested that this matter should be specifically addressed before the Single Bench, and the court advised the IAS and IPS lawyers to present further arguments there.
Who purchased how much… 1) Bathula Hemalatha (C/o Bathula Shivadhar Reddy IPS-20 guntas) 2) Priyanka Ratan (C/o Divagantha Rajeev Ratan IPS -16 guntas) 3) Ravi Gupta (IPS-16 guntas) 4) Mudireddy Nitish Reddy (S/o Mahender Reddy IPS-20 guntas) 5) Thatipatri Pavani Rao (C/o T. Prabhakar Rao IPS-16 guntas) 6) Rekha Sharaf (C/o Umesh Sharaf IPS-16 guntas) 7) Rajashri Saha (IPS-8 guntas) 8) Swathi Lakra (IPS-16 guntas) 9) Mitti Sathithi Suhana (C/o Mitti Srinibasu-8 guntas) 10) Nandini Man (C/o Vikram Singh Man IPS-8 guntas) 11) Dr Gnan Mudra (C/o Somesh Kumar IAS-20 guntas) 12) B.K. Rahul Hegde (Swayam-8 guntas) 13) Savyasachi Pratap Singh (C/o Govind Singh-8 guntas) 14) G. Om Anirudh (C/o Sudhir Babu IPS-Not specified) 15) Indu Rao Kaveti (C/o Lakshminarayana Rao Kaveti-16 guntas) 16) Nyalakonda Sindhu Reddy (C/o Nyalakonda Prakash Reddy-20 guntas) 17) Ishwarya Raj (C/o Vikas Raj-20 guntas) 18) Vennavelli Radhika (C/o Kamalassan Reddy-16 guntas) 19) Rita Sultana (C/o Sandeep Kumar Sultana-20 guntas) 20) Vasundhara Sinha (C/o Anjani Kumar-20 guntas) 21) Mutyala Vineela (C/o Stephen Ravindra IPS-8 guntas) 22) Ajith Kumar Mohanti (C/o Khestrabasi Mohanti-20 guntas) 23) Naveen Mittal (Self-20 guntas) 24) Soumya Mishra (Self-16 guntas) 25) Rahul Busi Reddy (S/o B. Janardhan Reddy IAS-16 guntas) 26) Tarun Joshi (Self IPS-16 guntas) 27) Peerla Varun (Peerla Viswa Prasad-16 guntas) 28) Thota Srinivasarao (S/o Thota Saibaba IPS-Not specified) 29) Konduru Srinadharaju (S/o Konduru Satyanarayana-20 guntas) 30) Mahesh Bhagwat (Self-16 guntas) 31) Renu Goyal (Commander Jithender Kumar Goyal-20 guntas) 32) Ajay Jain (Self-20 guntas) 33) Amith Kumar (C/o Anil Kumar-20 guntas).