AP High Court Issues Notices in Gitam University Land Regularisation Dispute
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday took significant action in a contentious land case, issuing formal notices to multiple parties involved in a petition challenging the regularization of 54.79 acres of land in the name of Gitam University. The court directed the state government, the president of Gitam University, and the Member of Parliament from Visakhapatnam to respond to the legal challenge.
Petitioner's Arguments Against Land Regularisation
Advocate Nimmi Grace from Visakhapatnam filed the petition with the High Court, contesting the proposal by revenue officials to regularize lands in favor of the educational institution. Representing her in court, advocate Jada Sravan Kumar presented a detailed argument against the regularization process.
Kumar argued that Gitam University has been occupying the subject land for an extended period, but the tahsildar proposed to regularize these lands despite the absence of any formal application from the university. He emphasized that the lands in question were officially categorized in revenue records as 'Rastha' (way), 'Konda' (hill), and 'Kaluva' (canal).
"According to Government Order 30 issued by the state government, these specific categories of lands cannot be regularized under any circumstances," Kumar stated during the proceedings, highlighting what he described as a clear violation of established regulations.
Government's Defense and Counter-Arguments
Government pleader for revenue, Krishna Reddy, presented a robust defense against the petition, questioning its very foundation. Reddy argued that the petition was not maintainable in court because the petitioner was not an aggrieved party in the matter and failed to produce any substantial material evidence pertaining to the regularization proposal.
Reddy clarified that the Government Order mentioned by the petitioner specifically addressed the regularization of houses constructed on government lands and was therefore not applicable to the current case involving university property. He made a crucial distinction between land regularization and land allotment processes, suggesting the petitioner had conflated these separate legal concepts.
"The petitioner has filed numerous petitions opposing virtually every land allotment in Visakhapatnam," Reddy pointed out, raising serious doubts about the petitioner's motivations. He went further to suggest that these repeated legal challenges might represent an attempt to blackmail government officials rather than genuine public interest litigation.
MP's Representation and Historical Context
Advocate Rudra Prasad, representing Visakhapatnam MP Sri Bharath, added another layer to the defense. He noted that while the petitioner argued that the tahsildar proposed regularization of land for the university, she failed to produce any documentary evidence supporting this claim.
Prasad provided important historical context to the case, revealing that the High Court had previously directed the state government to consider Gitam University's request for land allotment. He explained that the current process was initiated in compliance with these earlier judicial directions, suggesting the regularization effort followed proper legal channels.
Court's Decision and Future Proceedings
After carefully considering all arguments presented by both sides, Justice B Krishna Mohan issued a decisive order. The court directed all respondents to file comprehensive counter affidavits with complete details addressing the petitioner's concerns.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing after four weeks, giving all parties adequate time to prepare their detailed responses. This interim decision ensures that all perspectives will be thoroughly examined before any final judgment is rendered in this complex land regularization case that touches on educational institution needs, government procedures, and land use regulations.
