Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Friday directed the state govt not to take any coercive action regarding the acquisition of 891.3 acres of land handed over to Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL), a central public sector undertaking.A division bench comprising Justice EV Venugopal and Justice GM Mohiuddin passed the direction while hearing a house motion filed by IDPL challenging a single judge’s order. On May 8, the single judge passed an interim direction allowing the state govt to take over the land, currently estimated to be worth around Rs 50,000 crore and located at Bala Nagar in the heart of the city. The bench stated that no action should be taken in the matter until it is adjudicated and posted the matter for hearing before the single judge.IDPL filed an urgent appeal challenging the interim orders issued by a single judge, which halted the implementation of a 2008 order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) that withdrew the collector’s directive to acquire 891.3 acres of land and hand it over to TSIIC.During the hearing, additional solicitor general P Narasimha Sharma argued that the state govt had allocated the land for industrial purposes in 1961 and transferred 891.3 acres. He stated that the industry is still operational, with two plants functioning, and the land allocated to IDPL is being used for industrial purposes. He also said that immediately after the single judge issued interim orders halting the BIFR orders, Cyberabad municipal authorities attempted to seize the land by setting up banners.While the land remains in IDPL’s possession, the state govt claimed ownership based on the collector’s orders. Additional advocate general Tera Rajanikant Reddy, representing the state govt, and senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, representing TSIIC, argued that the BIFR orders were invalidated without notice, and the controversial 2008 order came to light.They contended that BIFR lacked the authority to issue such orders and argued that the orders were valid only for seven years. Since that period had expired, they said the BIFR and AAIFR orders were no longer in effect.After hearing both sides, the bench noted that the petition filed by the state govt challenging the BIFR orders was pending before a single judge. It stated that no actions should be taken for land acquisition based on the interim orders while the petition is under consideration. The bench disposed of the appeal, directing the state govt not to take up any actions related to land acquisition until the petition filed by the state govt is resolved.
