Relief for Naidu as HC stays CID probe in Amaravati land case

Hyderabad The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday ordered a stay on a probe into a case by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) against former chief minister and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister P Narayana in the alleged Amaravati land case

Hyderabad The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday ordered a stay on a probe into a case by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) against former chief minister and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister P Narayana in the alleged Amaravati land case.

HT Image

On Thursday, both the leaders had filed separate petitions in the court, seeking quashing of the March 12 FIR in which Naidu has been named as accused no. 1 and Narayana as accused no. 2. The case pertains to pooling of land for the development of the state’s new capital Amaravati in 2015.

The CID had served notices to Naidu and Narayana, asking them to appear before the designated officer on March 23 and March 22, respectively, for probe in the case. The agency also threatened to arrest them if they did not cooperate in the investigation process.

Appearing on behalf of Naidu, senior Supreme Court advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that the government order to acquire lands assigned to Dalit farmers was issued under AP Capital Region Development Act as part of land pooling for the construction of the capital.

“Sections 166 (public servant disobeying the law) and 167 (public servant framing incorrect document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) invoked by the CID to book cases against Naidu are not applicable in the present case. Secondly, the government order was issued as part of the land acquisition procedure and was ratified by the then chief minister 35 days later. How can the CID say that it was issued on the instructions of Naidu?” he argued.

The counsel for Naidu also pointed out that the FIR had failed to mention from where the government had allegedly forcibly taken the land belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and who had lodged a complaint in this regard.

Former advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas, who argued on behalf of Narayana, said the case was politically-motivated. “The government order was issued following a proposal by the then Guntur collector based on the representation given by the Dalit farmers. How can the cases be registered under the SC/ST Atrocities Act when the order was meant to provide benefits to the Dalits?” he said.

The two counsels for the petitioners urged the court to give a direction to the CID not to go ahead with any measures, including probe and arrests in the case.

Justice Roy asked the investigating agency to produce prima facie evidence against Naidu and Narayana.

In response, the counsel for CID, Jasti Nagabhushanam said no details could be revealed at this stage and further probe was required to prove the charges against the accused.

After hearing the arguments, the high court granted the stay on the probe until further orders.

Welcoming the stay order, TDP politburo member and spokesperson Varla Ramaiah said: “The court’s stay order once again showed show the Jagan regime was bent on filing motivated cases to seek revenge against Naidu.”

YSRCP general secretary V Vijay Sai Reddy said Naidu should face the investigation and come out clean, if he had not committed any crime, instead of obtaining stay orders from the court. “In every case against him, Naidu is surviving by obtaining stay orders. He does not have the guts to face the investigation and prove that he is not guilty,” Reddy said.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint by YSRCP MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy, who represents Mangalagiri assembly constituency which is part of Amaravati, on February 24.

Besides 166 and 167, Naidu was booked under sections 120 B (conspiracy) and 217 (public servant disobeying law with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture) of IPC.

The TDP chief was also booked under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7 of the AP assigned land (Prevention of Transfer) Act, 1977.