Hyderabad: The state govt is considering a hard line against the State Bank of India (SBI) after the bank challenged the Raidurg land auction in the high court. The govt has also begun gathering details of deposits held by various departments with SBI as it reviews its financial relationship with the bank.Sources in the CMO said the govt is displeased with SBI’s move and may not hesitate to withdraw deposits and shift accounts to other banks if required.While officials in the CMO and finance department declined to comment, sources confirmed that instructions have been issued to departments to compile information on deposits maintained with SBI.“The govt is dissatisfied with SBI for approaching the court after initially agreeing to an alternative parcel of land. The govt is viewing SBI’s stand on the issue with suspicion. A high-level review is under way to examine possible political angles in the matter,” a govt source said.The stakes are significant. SBI operates nearly 1,200 branches across Telangana, and most govt employees maintain salary accounts with the bank. It also plays a crucial role in disbursing welfare payments. Senior officials acknowledged that any drastic decision could disrupt govt transactions and financial operations.The dispute stems from the recent auction of land in Raidurg Knowledge City by the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), which fetched a record Rs 237 crore per acre.SBI has challenged the auction, claiming ownership of a 5-acre plot that it purchased in 2010 for Rs 13.33 crore. Govt sources, however, contend that the bank violated the conditions of allotment by failing to construct a corporate office within the stipulated two-year period. TGIIC has argued that the land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was allotted.In its submissions before the high court, SBI said it is constructing a corporate centre on the site and has already spent Rs 21.50 crore on development works, including the removal of boulders and land levelling.The bank further argued that the allotment did not contain a resumption clause and therefore amounted to an outright sale. Consequently, it contended, the govt has no authority to unilaterally resume or auction the land.The case has been posted for further hearing on June 25.
