Gulte Movie News And Politics
What began as a debate over Telangana’s prohibited lands list turned into a political fight over the properties of former Chief Minister KCR and his family.
During the Assembly discussion on Section 22-A of the Registration Act on September 16, Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy shifted the focus to alleged landholdings of the KCR family. Revanth argued that if questions were being raised about land records and prohibited properties, the land acquired by leaders of the previous BRS government should also be examined.
According to figures presented by Reddy, KCR and his wife Shobha hold 67.13 acres. He put the combined landholdings attributed to KCR’s extended family and relatives at 439.30 acres, spread across nine districts, 24 mandals and 31 villages. His figures included 123.19 acres attributed to KTR’s family, 37.26 acres to Kavitha and her husband, and 30.16 acres to Harish Rao and his wife.
But the 439-acre figure does not mean KCR personally owns 439 acres. It is a combined figure covering several family members and relatives. That distinction becomes important when the land-ceiling law is considered.
Reddy questioned the holdings against the agricultural land ceiling, citing 27 acres during his Assembly speech. However, Telangana’s land-ceiling law does not prescribe one flat limit for every agricultural holding. The ceiling depends on the classification of the land and the applicable standard holding, while family-unit rules also come into play. Therefore, the acreage cited by Reddy by itself does not establish a violation of the ceiling law.
The more serious allegation concerns KCR’s farmhouse at Erravalli.
Reddy also claimed that the area around the farmhouse covers roughly 700 acres. He alleged that around 295 acres were involved in a long-running boundary dispute, while another 388 acres were government land that had allegedly come within the area of the farmhouse.
Unlike the broader landholding allegations, this has now triggered an official government process. The CM directed Revenue officials to issue notice to KCR and ordered a fact-finding exercise to establish the ownership and extent of the land. Officials have been asked to submit a report within 30 days.
That means the 388-acre figure should currently be treated as an allegation, not an established finding. The revenue inquiry is supposed to determine whether the land is actually government property and, if so, how it came to be under private possession.
Reddy has already said that if government land is recovered, it could be distributed among around 800 Dalit families, with roughly half an acre proposed for each family.
The Chief Minister also brought KTR’s Janwada property into the discussion, making allegations about its earlier ownership and subsequent transfers. Those claims too need to be distinguished from established findings and verified against land and transaction records.
The political fight, therefore, has moved well beyond the original Section 22-A question, as now the BRS is now on the defense.
The BRS has rejected Revanth’s allegations and turned the issue back on the Congress government. Former minister T Harish Rao said his properties had been disclosed in his election affidavits and income-tax returns and demanded a judicial inquiry by a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge into land transactions under both the BRS and Congress governments.
Kavitha took a similar records-based position, saying that if even one square yard of land beyond what she had declared is established to be in her possession, she would surrender it to the government. She also demanded that any investigation cover everyone named in the controversy.
The Congress is using the issue to question how land accumulated around the previous BRS leadership. The BRS is demanding that the same scrutiny be applied to the current government and Revanth’s family.
For now, the central question is not simply how much land the KCR family owns. It is whether any of the holdings violate the applicable land-ceiling provisions, and, more significantly, whether the government can establish its claim over the alleged 388 acres around the Erravalli farmhouse.
The answer to that will depend on land records and the revenue inquiry, not on the competing political claims made in the Assembly.
