Telangana High Court questions validity of land allotment to IMG Bharat, lack of action on IAS officer concerned

HYDERABAD: The legal battle on transferring 850 acres of valuable land to a company that was later found to be fictitious - IMG Bharat - was heard in the Telangana High Court.

During the hearing of a writ petition filed by IMG Bharat's chairman Ahobila Rao, alias Billy Rao, the legal validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the sale deed executed by the TDP Government of undivided Andhra Pradesh in favour of IMG Bharat was contested. Advocate-General A Sudarshan Reddy revealed that IMG Bharat was a phantom firm created just days before entering into an MoU with the previous government in 2003. The company had no links to IMG's worldwide sports facility in Florida, as claimed by Rao.

The AG further disclosed that the government of the time had agreed to transfer 850 acres of prime land in Hyderabad, including 11 sports stadiums and five acres of prime land near Jubilee Hills, to this purportedly fictitious firm at an astonishingly low cost of Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 per acre. Notably, 400 acres of this land belonged to the University of Hyderabad, raising eyebrows about its alleged illegal transfer.

The court questioned the AG about the lack of action against the bureaucrat responsible for the decisions now under scrutiny, raising concerns about the IAS officer's unchecked power, especially when dealing with valuable land, some of which belonged to a central university. The legal saga took another twist as senior counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana, representing Rao, argued against the government's use of the AP Govt Property (Preservation and Sesumption) Act 2006 to reclaim the land, asserting that the state lacked jurisdiction to reclaim land sold through a registered sale deed.

The AG countered these claims, asserting that the state's actions were within its powers to resume the land in the public interest, especially since a single individual committed the fraud. The case has been adjourned to February 28, leaving the audience eagerly awaiting the next chapter in this gripping legal narrative, with questions about potential prosecutions against key figures, including the then Chief Secretary, lingering.