M/S. CELEBRITY LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,, (FORMERLY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s site property of 1756.6 Sq. yards out of 9187.7 covered by Survey Numbers 41, 114 115 and 116 comprising plots 145 to 150, 153-B and 154-A situated in Kondapalli Revenue Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in NTR District (Formerly Krishna District) nor demolish any structures therein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3 The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from its site property of 1756.6 sq yards out of 9187.7 sq yards covered by survey Nos.41, 114, 115 and 116 comprising plots 145 to 150, 153-B and 154-A situated in Kondapalli Revenue Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in NTR District (Formerly Krishna District), the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 9187.7 sq yards in the subject survey numbers, having acquired the same through different sale deeds. She further submitted that originally APIIC Limited had acquired land to an extent of Ac.430.72 cents under Land Acquisition Act, 1984 at Kondapalli Village for establishment of Kondapalli Industrial Development Area. A lay out was subsequently formed and plot Nos.145 to 150, 153-B and 154-A are part of the said lay out. The sale deeds explicitly mention the northern boundary as a road, although it is notionally referred to as the Kondapalli Sub-Minor. However, the recitals in these sale deeds confirm that the so called Kondapalli Sub-Minor did not exist on the ground at the time of the said transactions. She further submitted that the original allottees of the subject plots subsequently 4 executed registered sale deeds in favour of M/s Alekhya Drugs Pvt. Limited and later Alekhya Drugs Private Limited was changed to Celebrity Life Science Private Limited i.e., petitioner. She further submitted that the respondent authorities, without any authority of law, visited the subject property and insisted the petitioner to vacate the same alleging that they had encroached the canal. She further submitted that the alleged canal does not exist and was not in existence even at the time of the allotment of the subject land in 1999 as evidenced by the sale deeds executed by APIIC Limited. She further submitted that the respondents did not conduct proper survey, nor did they issue any notice, nor did they give any opportunity of personal hearing, nor did pass any order to that effect. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department submitted that the petitioner have occupied the subject land as per the joint survey conducted by the Irrigation Department and Revenue authorities. He further submitted that the CCLA, AP has instructed vide CCLA’s Ref.REV02-25/2/2022, dated 04.07.2023 to follow Act No.15 of 1984 for getting eviction of encroachments on water bodies. The lands of water bodies are required to be safe guarded. Hence, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the 5 dispute raised by the petitioner involve factual aspects, particularly with regard to the alleged encroachment and the correctness of the survey conducted by the respondent authorities. Admittedly, the petitioner did not approach the authorities before knocking the doors of this court. As stated supra, when there are certain factual issues involved, instead of going into those aspects, this Court is inclined to relegate the parties to approach the concerned authority to put forth their claim by way of a representation, so that the authority concerned would look into the same and act accordingly in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation/application, along with all relevant documents in support of its claim to respondent No.4, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation/application, respondent No.4 shall consider the same, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner with regard to subject property.