The ownership of a 53-acre piece of land at Rayadurgam in the IT corridor is turning out to be controversial with more than one claimant asserting that the land belongs to them.
Barely a week after YSR Congress MP from Araku, Kothapalli Geetha, claimed that the land belonged to the firm, Bhavana Cooperative Society, in which she is a shareholder, two city-based businessmen - J. Vinayak Rao, R. Phanindra Kumar and others - claimed that the land belonged to them and that they held the general power of attorney relating to the said premises. The land, they said, had been continuously in their possession barring an aberration of the State illegally taking possession of it two days before the adoption of the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Displaying the documents, some of which were obtained through the RTI Act, they alleged that the Araku MP had fabricated documents relating to the land which belonged to pattadars - Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and 10 others - but the issue had been exposed by four independent inquiries conducted by different agencies. It was revealed during an inquiry conducted by senior IAS officer A.C. Punetha, the then Principal Secretary, that the said firm, Bhavana Cooperative Society, or its members, were neither in possession of the land nor were having any documents in support of their claim.
Case filed
In another probe, the banking security fraud cell of the CBI had filed a case in respect of loan obtained by Ms. Geetha and others mortgaging the sale deed of the land in favour of Visweswara Infrastructure Company Limited. The CBI cell had alleged that the loan was obtained on the basis of fraudulent documents and it was utilised for a purpose other than what it was sanctioned for.
They said an inquiry by the Crime Investigation Department had also corroborated the CBI cell’s charge claiming that a forensic examination of the documents said the signatures on the documents were dissimilar.
They said a close examination of the pahanis and the khabjebar (possessor) column show that Ms. Geetha or her front companies were never in possession of the said land, but they were trying to sell the property through fraudulent means.
