Supreme Court rejects IAMC review petition challenging quashing of free land allotment by Telangana

The Supreme Court has rejected a review petition filed by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) against a February 2026 order upholding the quashing of allotment of 3.70 acres of government land in Hyderabad to the arbitration centre for free. [The International Arbitration and Mediation Centre v. Koti Raghunatha Rao & Ors]

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SVN Bhatti also rejected IAMC’s application seeking oral hearing in the matter.

“Having perused the order under review and the grounds urged in support of the prayer made, we are of the considered opinion that no case for review has been set up,” the Court said in its May 5 order.

On February 4, the Supreme Court upheld a Telangana High Court quashing the State government’s decision to allot 3.70 acres of land at Raidurg village in Hyderabad to IAMC without charging market value.

The case arose from two pleas challenging government orders issued by the State between 2021 and 2022. These orders concerned three issues. The first was the free allotment of land to IAMC. The second was grant of ₹3 crore as financial assistance. The third was a direction requiring government departments and public sector undertakings to refer disputes above ₹3 crore to IAMC for arbitration.

The petitioners had argued that the decisions amounted to arbitrary distribution of State largesse. They also claimed that the land allotment violated statutory rules and caused loss to the public exchequer.

A Division Bench of Justices K Lakshman and K Sujana held that promotion of institutional arbitration may be a legitimate public purpose. However, the State could not bypass mandatory statutory requirements to achieve that objective. The High Court found that the allotment violated the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975. It noted that IAMC was a private trust at the time of allotment. It also found that no material showed compliance with the statutory procedure for alienation of government land.

However, the High Court did not interfere with the ₹3 crore grant or the dispute-referral policy.

[Read Order]