Telangana

KTR Slams Musi River Rejuvenation Project: BRS Opposes Displacement of Families and Escalated Costs

KTR Condemns Musi River Project: BRS Opposes Family Displacement, Escalating Costs

Hyderabad – BRS working President KT Rama Rao launched a fierce attack on Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, accusing him of turning the Musi River rejuvenation project into a massive scam. Rama Rao alleged that the project’s costs have been inflated from an estimated Rs 25,000 crore to an astonishing Rs 1.5 lakh crore, branding it an “ATM for the Congress.”

While clarifying that the BRS is not against the rejuvenation of the Musi River, KTR emphasized that the party stands firmly against the unjust displacement of thousands of families and the unexplained rise in project costs. He criticized the government’s actions, pointing out that demolitions are being conducted unlawfully, without proper compensation and in violation of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013.

“The project lacks essential approvals, detailed project reports, and impact assessments. All of these elements indicate a significant scandal in the making,” KTR remarked during a detailed rebuttal to the Chief Minister’s claims.

Rama Rao outlined the BRS government’s decade-long efforts towards the Musi River’s restoration, including investments in Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) worth Rs 3,800 crore to ensure that no untreated water enters the river. He also highlighted the Kaleshwaram project, which aims to link the Godavari River to the Musi, permanently addressing wastewater issues.

Accusing Revanth Reddy of colluding with controversial firms like Meinhardt, which has a questionable history of financial misconduct, KTR raised concerns about the Congress government’s true intentions behind inflating the project’s cost. “There is no explanation for this cost escalation, and the demolitions of over 300 homes without proper planning are completely unjustified,” he said.

In closing, KTR warned that displacing the underprivileged in the name of such projects would not be tolerated, demanding answers about the project’s return on investment and the decision to allocate nearly 2,900 acres of forest land for unrelated purposes.

Related Articles

Back to top button