Durgam Cheruvu rocks not part of TGIIC auction land, Telangana govt tells high court | Hyderabad News

On Aug 1, TGIIC announced the auction of two land parcels of five acres each. The auction ran into legal trouble after city-based medical practitioner Dr Ravindranath Soory filed a petition in the high court, alleging that the plots contained rock formations and were located in the precincts of Durgam Cheruvu

Hyderabad: The state govt on Thursday informed the Telangana high court that the rock formations around Durgam Cheruvu do not fall within the 10-acre land parcel proposed to be auctioned by the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC). According to the state, while the rocks are located in the same survey number as the TGIIC land, they lie outside the lake’s buffer zone.Additional advocate general T Rajnikanth Reddy, appearing for TGIIC, contended that the 10-acre parcel is located more than 50 metres from the lake’s mouth and contains no heritage structures or rock formations. He assured the court that none of the rocks would be affected by the auction. He also argued against stalling the auction, saying it had been cleared by three committees — a technical committee in 2013, and a technical committee and officers’ committee in 2026.On Aug 1, TGIIC announced the auction of two land parcels of five acres each. The auction ran into legal trouble after city-based medical practitioner Dr Ravindranath Soory filed a petition in the high court, alleging that the plots contained rock formations and were located in the precincts of Durgam Cheruvu.Taking note of the state’s submission, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed the petitioner to file a detailed counter. He posted the matter for further hearing on Sept 19.Meanwhile, even as senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, contended that the proposed auctioned land and the land alleged by the petitioner are different, the petitioner’s counsel – senior advocate V Hariharan — pointed to the 2013 technical committee report, which listed the preserved area at 24 acres (approx.) across different references in the record. He questioned how the plot numbering and boundaries had changed despite the total acreage remaining largely the same.When the judge pointed out that the pictures submitted by the petitioner appeared to show no rock formations on the disputed land, the counsel said the land in the pictures had been marked with green cover. He further urged the court to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the site and independently verify the facts.