Writ Petition No. 72223 of 1994 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition challenges the action of Respondents 1 and 4 in failing to convert the land belonging to petitioner, admeasuring 6376 square yards in Plot Nos. 3, 3/ I to 317 in Azamabad Industrial Estate, Hyderabad from leasehold to freehold as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide exercise of power and in contravenlion of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated

29.Oa.2O23 issued by the 1't respondent. Consequently, a direction is sought [o respondents to process the Application of petitioner as falling under Category A'in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.08.2023 and receive 1O0% of the market value to convert the said land from lease hold to free hold.

2. Sri D.V. Seetharamamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Koushik Kanduri, learned counsel for petitioner submits that for the purpose of Economic Development, the Nizam Government during 1927 formed a committee consisting of (i) Superintending Engineer, Ciry Improvement Board ii) Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ii) Commissioner, City Police (iv) The Director, 2 Commercial Industries and (v) Supcrintendirtg F)ngineer, .l Electricity to selcct an area for industries and far;tcrie s. The said Committces acquired land to an extent of Acs. 136 04 guntas in Azamabad out of the funds provided by the Inclustri:tl Trust. Later, total area was divided into 86 plots of difier cnt sizes and leased out to Industrialists who intended [o set 'rp industries and use the same for industrial purposes for a pi:riod of 99 years. The then Superintending Engineer, City Improvement Board handed over the plots in industrial Area to the lndustrial Trust Fund through Lr. Nq. 9137F /7018 datecl 29.1'2.:952. lt is contended that the said Industrial Trust Funcl acting for and on behaif of the Government of Hyderabacl executcl lease deeds in favour of M/s Shivdathrai Gulab Rai, a parlnerslrip hrm consisting of four partners Gulabrai, Prahaladrar , Su rt dermal and Bilasrai. Originally, M/s Shivdathrai Gu at, Itai was allotted Plot No.3/ | uide Agreement of Lease daterl I a.O7 -1946 and later Piot Nos.3/2 Lo 3/7 uide Agreement of Lt:ase dated

21.O1.1952 to set up Mahavir Cotton Spinning & !'/errving Mills in an area admeasuring total extent of 22290 lSq yards in Azamabad Industrial Area. Petitioner is the son r>f onc of the partners Sri Prahaladrai, original allottee of lease. I)etitioner's 3 farnily i.e. petitioner's father and Petitioner have been in absolute possession and enjo]'rnent of the subject property admeasuring 6376 Sq. yards out of the said total extent of 22290 Sq. yards by setting up an industry and undertaking industrial activity. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that, to curb the misuse of unauthorised use of Government land and other irregularities and to prevent non-industrial use and to have uniform terms and conditions of lease, the Government enacted Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act 15 of 1992. Under the said Act, all leases or other arrangements made or entered into through registered deed or otherwise in respect of all demised plots in Azamabad Industrial Area stood terminated on the appointed day 11.O7.1992 and the persons in occupation o[ the lands were required to apply for a fresh lease. Aggrieved by the said termination of lease, several Industrial Units of Azamabad have filed Writ Petition No.72223 of 1994 and batch before this Court to declare the said act as unconstitutional. This Court uide order dated 18.08.1904 dismissed the said Writ Petitions upholding the constitutional validity of Act 15 of 1992. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeals No. 4 8852 of 19O4 and batch were fi1ed in Supreme ( or-rrt. By order dated 18.04.1900, the said cases were dispo:;cc L,[ on the assurance given by the State Government that 1\ct l:'t of 1992 would be suitably amended. It was directed that 'ro :iction against the Industries operating in the Irdustrial Area concerned should be [aken under the said Ar:. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also recorded the submission cf rhe State Government that proposal of amendment has already becn placed before the Cabinet and that no ac iorr regzrrding cancellation of lease against that industries conccrned r.vould be taken.

It was contended that in view of tht: irbove order, the State Government amended the Principal Ac as Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulal io n ol Lcases) Amendment Act No. I of 2000 which came into force u,.e.f. 17 .O2.2OOO incorporating a provision foi grant of lrc ehold rights to the Industrial Units of Azamabad Inrlr-rstnal Area. Accordingly, Section 3 was also suitably amendcd r-rnrler which lessees were entitied to a fresh grant of lease frorr the appointed date and in lieu of the renewal of leases, the s:rid lessees may opt for freehold rights in respect of the demiserl plots. It was 5 furtfier contended that the 1st respondent in exercise of powers .conferred under Sectioo 21 of the Act, issued G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 2O.O2 20O2, under which the occupants/ lessees on the date of appointed day were required to apply on their own for conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights by paying a price equivalent to 75o/o of the market value as on 17.O2.2OOO. To the same effect, in 2004, Notilication dated 17.02 2OO4 was issued inviting applications in the prescribed format from the occupant/industria-list for grant of freehold rights in Azamabad Industrial Area under the provisions of Act 1 of 2000 within 30 days from tfre issuance of Notification. In response, Petitioner in the name of original allottee M/s Shivdatrai Gulabrai made Application dated 17.03.2004, but there was no response from the Respondents, therefore, petitioner made several such Applications as reminders on 19.O5.2OO4, 27.O7.2OO4 and

08.02.2005. The 2"d Respondent uide letter dated O2.08.20O5 informed that a personai hearing was hxed on 22.08.2O05 and asked to produce documentary evidence, if any in addition to what has already been furnished along with the Application. Petitioner along with others attended personal hearing on

22.O8.2OO5 and by letter, dated 01.09.2OO5, furnished .1 6 additional d,ocuments as requested' But' however' no decision was taken on the Application of Petitioner alonll rvith sevcral other occupants/ applicants despite making oral :rn<I writ[en .requests to receive the payment at 7 5o/o marl:et value and convert the leasehold rights to freehold' Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Government issued G'O'Ms'No'235' dated t''4 'lO 2OO8 in supersession of the earlier orders' hxing the mrlrket value lor market valut: zrt the rates conversion of land by .collecting prevailing as on 17 'O2 2O0O Petitioner applied under lhe said GO but was of no avail as no demard was made for payments and land was not converted to freehold and no r;ale deeds rvere executed i.n favour of any of the industrialist/ oc.;uparrts despite numerous requests and constant follow up with th'r Authorities' Further lt was contended that h 2O2O' the I't Respondent directed the General Manager, District Induslries Centre, Hyderabad to conduct a Joint Inspection along with ofhcials o[ Revenue Department under the guidance of District Collector to ascertain status of utilization of the lands allotted to Industrial Units. The Joint lnspection report was submitte 1 stating that 58 unils including TSRTC plots were in posses'sion of various 7 persons. The cabinet sub-committee for resource mobilization, in its meeting held on 25.06.2022, decided to extend freehold rights to all the units in the estate. In tune with the said decision, Government issued a Memo No. 50 l /AF & INF/A1l2O18 dated 29.O8.2O22 deciding to issue freehold rights by hxing ttre price for original allottees as 10O7<r of registration value and 2OOo/o for others. petitioner in the name of the original allottee M/ s Shivdatrai Gulabrai made representation dated 20.10.2022 tn terms of the above said Memo dated

29.08.2022 along with all the necessary documcnts requesting to convert the subject land to freehold. In response to the same, ttre 1st Respondent issued Demand Notice dated 25.10.2022 demanding Rs.242,96,72.SaO /- Hundred and Fort5r TWo Crore Ninety Six Lakh Seventy Seven (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only) towards freehoid charges fixing the same at 2OOo/o of the market value ignoring the fact that Petitioner and other owners of plot Nos. 3, 3/ I to 3 /7 in Azamabad Industrial Estate, Hyderabad are the legal heirs of origina-l allottees and are chargeable at tOoyo of the market value. Petitioner along with others in response to the said demand notice, issued reply dated 28.1O.2022 informing I '['wenty freehold rights in Rs.54,50{)/ Per Sq' that registratlon value as on that daY was yard and when the same is calculated against the totll 'lxlent' it comes to Rs- 121,48'38'790/ - (Rupees One Hundred 'ind One Crore Fortl' Eight Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand even Hundred and Ninetl. only) and requested to amend rht: demand notice. [t was further contended that despite repeat:d requests' no action was taken by the Respondent Authorities That' Notice was issued to make payme r.lts t owards dated 14 08 2023 accordance with Demand Nc tice and in wouid be initiated for ev ctron ln the mentioned that Petitioner has not a! -Zo(loh as Per default, Iegal Proceedings said notice, it is clearlY availed the benefit by paying market value NoLice wz.s scrved on Memo dated 29 08 '2022 The said 30.08.202 3 was frled 28.Oa.2O23 for which rePlY dated the original allottees al.rd cirnnot be informing that they are charged al 2OOo/o market value and no action r't'as' Lake'n on the same ti1l date According to learned Senior Ccunsel' Respondent issued G O Ms'No' 19 dated 2) O8'2O23 rn supersession of all the earlier orders and memo t(' reglrlarize the industrial PIots bY grantlng freehold rights tr thc existing in Azamabad Industrial Area' Under rllzLuse f 7 (i) of the l st occupants 9 the said GO, Industrial Units have been categorized into two categories Category 'Ar and Category B'. Category 'A' is covered by (i) the units in possession of the original allottees including their legal heirs whether working or not working, (ii) where as per the joint inspection report, the plot is vacant and is in possession of the original a,llottees and industrial activity has taken place previousiy. A11 other units excluding Category 'A' falls under Category 'B'. Original Allottees falling under Category 'A' are required to pay 1O0% and Category 'B' are required to pay 2OO%o of t'l.e market value as freehold charges. That G.O.Ms.No.19 dated, 29.08.2023 is in tune with or reiteration with certain clarifications of the earlier Memo No.50 I / IF & INF/AI/2018 dated 29.Oa.2O22 even under which the original allottees were required to pay lOOo/o of the market value as freehold charges and others at 2OOok. It is submitted that Petitioner being the legal heir of the original allottee is required to pay only lOO7o of the market value and accordingly made Application dated 21.IO.2O23 to Respondents that PJtitioner along with others are willing to pay TOOo/o of the market value which comes to Rs. 12 i,48,38,790/- for the entire extent of 22290 Sq. yards and requested to grant 10 freehold rights and execute deeds separately to eac :l <;f them in terms of G.O.Ms.No.19. As there was no reply from the Respondents again, Petitioner along with ol.hers made representation daLed, 12 02 '2024 as a reminder antl set out the entire background by stating all the applications :nade by the Petitioner since 2O02 ald how the same were kep[ pending by the Respondent Authorities without taking any action and demanding any amounts on all the occasions' Lastly' it was contended that Section 3 (3) of Act 1 of 2O0O confers a right on the leaseholders to opt for free hold in lieu of ren<:wal of lease' Therefore, the request of Petitioner to convert his land to free hoid is based on statutory rights conferred to him t'ncler Act 1 of 2OOO and the same cannot be denied and be :<ept pending forever after the formal guidelines for implementat-ion of the same are issued. Petitioner made Applications to Respondent Authorities four times under different Govern:nent orders' memos and instructions since Section 3 (3) of Act 1 of 2O00 came into force and right has been created in fzrvour of Petitioner but no linal decision has been taken and the same is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to dereliction of duties of the Respondent Authorities. Further, Clause 17 (1) of G'O'Ms'No' I 11 19, dated 29.08.2023 clearly stipulates that original allottee or their legal heir falls under Category'A' and Clause 17 (II) states that persons/occupants falling under Category ,A' are required to pay 10O%o of the market value. Therefore, petitioner being the legal heir of original a-llottee is liable to pay only 1OO% of the market value and the same cannot be disputed by the Respondent Authorities. Therefore, unless and until this Court intervenes and directs the Respondent Authorities to consider the Application of Petitioner for conversion of subject land to freehold in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Act 1 of 2OOO and Clause 17 (1) Category 'A' of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23 by collection TOOo/o of market vaiue in accordance with Clause 17 (li), Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and grave injury while also suffering moneta_qr loss.

3. Initially, this Court uide order dated 23.2.2024 directed Respondents 1 and 4 to consider the Application of Petitioner as falling under Clause 17 (t) Category 'A' in terms of G.O.Ms.No.l9 dated 29.08.2O23 and receive TOOYo of the market value to convert his land admeasuring 6376 Sq. yards bearing P1ot.No.3,3/1 to 317 it Azalrnabad Industrial Estate. Hyderabad from lease-hold to freehold forthwith, pending disposal of Writ .l l2 Petition. Pursuant to the said interim direclion, the 4d respondent i.e. Telangana State Industrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd. had considered the repres'en ta tions of petitioner and passed rejection order dated 2O'3 2024 stating that petitioner is not eligible under Category A of Clause 17' Learned Special Government Pleader Sri Swaroop 4. Ooritla appearing on behalf of learned Governme rt Pleader for Industries & Commerce admits formation of Oommittee by Nizam Government and acquisition of land froln out of the funds provided by the Industrial Trust Fund and leasing out to industrialists for industrial purposes for a periocl of 99 years' The then Superintending Engineer, City Improvement Board had handed over the plots in the Industrial Area to the Industrial Trust Fund through letter dated 29-72-1952' However, later on, to curb misuse/unautho rized use of Government land, other irregularities, violations e-ncl to prevent non-industrial use and to have uniform terms ancl conditions of lease, the Government enacted Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of (Leases) Act 15 of 1992. Further it was contended that, under Section 3(1), all lt'ases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or l3 otherwise in respect of all demised plots in the Azamabad Industrial Area, stand terminated on the appointed date i.e., ll.O7 .1992 and consequently, all sub-leases or any other arrangements whatsoever made by the person/ entity in occupation to hold possession of the demised plot stand annulled and every such demised plot vests in the Government free from all encumbrances and shall be used subsequently for industrial purpose only. Under Section 4(l), on termination of lease or other arrangement under Section 3(1), the person in occupation may at his option apply for a fresh lease in the manner prescribed. Further, it was contended that Government also issued rrles under the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination & Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992, uide G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 06.O4.1992 and the Commissioner of Industries was appointed as Competent Authority uide G.O Ms. No. 154 Inds. & Com (IF-Cell) Department dated O6.04.1993. The Government also issued rules under the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination.& Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992, uide G-O- Ms No. 155 dated 06.04.1992 and the Commissioner of Industries was appointed as Competent Authority under the Act uideG.O Ms. No. 154 dated 06.04.1993. t4 Learned Special Government Pleader sLrbmits that aggrieved by the same, several industrial units of Azamabad filed Writ Petitions to declare Azamabad Indr.rstrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act No.1r of 1992 as unconstitutional, violative of Articies 14, 19(1) (g) 300 A of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Division Bench rride judgment dated 10.08.1994 held that it was within the competenr:e of the l,egislature to make law with retrospective effect or ln{]orporate a deeming provision and all the Writ Petitions we:'e dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, batch of Special lcave Petitions were hled and the Supieme Court on the assurancr.given by the State Government that Act No. 15 of 1992 woul<l suiably be amended, disposed of the Special Ieave petitions ar; infructuous and directed that no action against the industries olterating in the industrial area concerned should be taken utrdcr the Act,

1992. lt was also noted by the Court that a submission by the Counsel representing the State was made that thc proposal of amendment of thc Act had already been place<1 before the Cabinet and that no action regarding cancellation tf leases etc, against that industries concerned shall be taker-r under the impugned Act. 15 Further, it was contended that in view of the above orders, the State Government amended the Principal Act as Azamahad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of kases) Amendment Act No- 1 of 2000 which came into force with effect from 17.02.2000 incorporating a provision for grant of freehold rights to the unit holders in the Azamabad Industrial Area. Accordingly, Section (3) of the Azamabad Industrial Area, (Termination d Regulation of leases) Act No. I of 1992 has been amended to terminate all leases, sub-leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or otherwise, in case of misusing the land for other purposes, unauthorized sub-letting or trarsferring the plots or portions, entering into disguised partnerships or violation of any terms of the lease deed as per Section 3 (b) and all those lessees who do not fall under the said Section were to be entitled to a grant of fresh lease from the appointed date and in lieu of renewal of lease may opt for free-hold rights in respect of demised plots. Under Section 4, on termination of lease or other arrangements made under Section 3(I)(a), a person in occupation and running an industry on the appointed date may apply for a fresh lease in the manner prescribed. It was contended that in view of the 16 above, Press Notif-rcation dated 17.O2.2004 u,rrs issued and Applications u,ere received lrom several persons seeking freehold rights of the government land in the Estate. After cr>nsideration, 24 applicants \tr'ere erroneously found to be ehgicle for lreehold rights. Upon exercise of review by the Govc mment under Section 10 of the Act, 15 of such applicants we rc found to be ineligible for freehold rights. Further, inquiry conducred by the vigilarrce department and the report dated 17 .O:;.2O2O thereof reveals that the provisional allotment letters whicl-r were issued are in contravention of the provisions of the Azambad Act. The report further recommended ceasing all the provisional allotment Letters for free hold rights which were granted. Following such inquiry, disciplinary action was rr:commended by the Director of vigilarce and enforcement a5lairst the then officers responsible for such erroneous issuan<:c of allotment Ietters. In any case, allotment letters were onl1 provisional in nature and since no amounts were received from the applicants nor sale deeds registered in their names, no vest,rd rights in the property accrlres to applicants. Therefore, no '-rcsh lease nor freehold rights were gralted to any of the unrt -rolders and all the leases in the Azamabad industrial Area stooc tr:rminated by 17 virtue of Section 3(1)(a) of the Azarnabad Industrial Area (Termination and Reguiation of leases) Amendment Act. 200O. Further it was specifically contended that thereafter, Joint Inspection of the Azamabad Industrial Estate was conducted and the report thereof was furnished by the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Musheerabad to Respondent No.2 uide Letter dated O1.O4.2022. The report dated O1.O4.2O22 revealed that despite termination of leases of the unit holders in accordance with the Azanr,abad Industrial area Amendment Act, 2000, there are currently 58 units in the estate, most of them in possession of sub-tenants/ occupalts and not the originai allottees. Further several requests were received from the unit hoiders seeking freehold rights. Thereafter, the Cabinet subcommittee on resource mobilization, in its meeting held on 25.6.2022, had decided to extend freehold rights to all the unit holders. After careful examination, the Government uide Memo dated 29.08.2022 decrded to issue freehold rights in respect of the Government land in Azamabad Industrial Estate by hxing the rates for these two categories of units as original allottees: lOOok of registration value and others: 2OOoh of registration value and MD, TSIIC(4th 18 respondent) was nominated as competent atrthority/ nodal agency. It was also contended that on further examirlation of the issue and following the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in order dated 23.06.2023 in Writ Appcal No.634 of 2023, that a policy, guidelines and rul':s regarding regularization of property concerned may be framed after following proper procedure, with appropriate sarctions and approvals uide Government Order, clearly de lineating the appropriate reasons and objects behind the said policy decision of the Government and the class of persons t:ntitled to be regularized shall be specihcally mentioned withoul any scope for ambiguity, Memo dated 29.Oa.2O22 was withdralvn and G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.08.2023 was issued by the Government. It was further contended that, in the present case, original allottee of Plots No.3, 3/ I to 317 is M/s Shivd"rtt. Rai Gulab Rai. Petitioner has to establish before iesponde n: No.4 that he would not fa11 under category B of G.O.Ms.l'Io. 1.9 dated

29.O8.2023. Since, according to Respondent No-4, petitioner falls under category B. reasons are (i) there is no inoustrial unit as required under G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23, (ii) plot is not vacant with proof of industrial activity to have taken place l9 previously in the allotted plot, (iii) though petitioner has corne into possession through the odginal allottee, there is no permission accorded by the Government. It was vehemently contended that in the allotted plot, presently some third parties are running commercial activities who happen to be sub-lessees of petitioner. Originally, Plots 3, 3 / 1 to 3 /7 , in Azamabad lndustrial Area had been given on lease to M/s Shivdat Rai Gulab Rai for 99 years for setting up of Spinning and Weaving Mills in the year 1952. Thereafter, Inspection Report dated O3.O2.1979, Mr Mukund Lal, Sri Amruittal, Sri Madusudan, Sri Aravind Komar and Mr Bharath Kumar as partners of Super Steel Distributors and Manufacturers went into production in November 1977. \t was also stated in the Inspection report that Mahaveer spinning Waste Plant is a partnership firm occupying 2383 sq yards and was running at the time of inspection and improved the production activities. Thereafter, partiLion was affected among the legal heirs and three applications were made to the Government seeking recognition of such arrangement and for execution of Iease deeds to that effect. The request of the occupants of Plot No.3, 3l l to 3 /7 was forwarded to Government uide Letter dated O3-O4-L979 with a 20 recommendation to allow one year time for est,rblishing their respective plants. In the meanwhile, due to unauthorised sub- letting con str-uctions / alterations, show cause notico uas issued oo O4.O7.7979 and they have replied on 09.07. 1!)7!t. Finally, they u,ere directed not to take up any additionaL unauthorized construction / alteration s till a decision is taken by the (lovernment on their representations for estirblishing their rr:spective units uide Letter dated 29.Oa.1979. Further based on the representations made. by a1l the partners, ;r tneeting rvas conducted by Additional DI, RDO and DDTC and decidecl the entire plot No.3, 3/ | to 3 /7 to be divided to all the partners and tlre Governmenl was addressed uide Lr.No. 14970 I 1 AAl73, dated 12.07.1984 recommending the extent cf acres to be allotted and lease deeds to be executed scparatc v i.e. 1) Gulab Rai - 3076.50 Sq.Yards,2) Prahlad Rai - 6527.5,O Sq.Yards, 3) Sunder Mal - 7092.50 Sq.Yards and 4) Bilas, Rai 743t.5O Sq.Yards in alt total 24128.OO Sq.Yards. Howr:vcr, the Government sought certain clarihcation on the alro'" e proposals. The Direclor oi Industries furnished theil reporrs on 19-11-1985, O2-O7 -1986, 05-08-1986. The Gov,.rnmenr again requested for some more information on 06,01]- I 986. After 2t protracted correspondence, the Government uide DO Letter dated 2O-O7 -1989 requested the Director of Industries to conduct physical verihcation of plots and furnish modified draft show cause notices as per the opinion of the Government Pleader. The Supervisor, AIA, Hyderabad on 28-OZ-19g9 inspected the area in Plot Nos. 3, 3/ 1 to 3/7 ard reported the extent of areas under the possession of each partner along with the particulars of sub-lessees. According to the sketch, the total extent of area of all plots is.coming to 23380 sq yards. However, no approval was given by the Government to the partition affected by the legal heirs of the original allottee among themselves. At this juncture, to curb misuse of the Government lands at Azamabad Industrial Area, The Azaniabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992 came to be enacted. Further it was also contended that the Joint Inspection report dated O1.O4.2022, reveals that Plot Nos.3, 3/ 1 to 317 are presently in occupation of several legal heirs of original allottee. The Inspection report also reveals that no industrial unit is being operated by the legal heirs in the said plot. However, the plot is also not vacant. Instead, the legai heirs in occupation of the subject plot have illegally let out 22 portions of the plot to several business concerns such as M/s Sai Balaji Packaging, M/s R R Offset Printers, M/s Deepti PrinLers, M/ s Big Apple on rent, to run ttrei: respective commercial businesses. Category 'A' covers thos,e plots, where an industrial unit is present either in working condition or non- working condition (dormant) {Category A (1Xi)} or where there is no Industrial unit at all and the plot is vacant, btrt Industrial activiry had laken place previously in the said plot {Category A(1)(ii)) or r.r'here the unit holders came into possession of the plot after obtaining permission of the Governmer t. But, it doe s not include those plots which do not fall within :ither of these conditions. In the present matter, the subject plot neither has an operational/ dormant industrial unit nor is tL e plot vacant. Instead, portions of plot have been let out to business entities and thereby personal commercial gains/rent are being made out of the Government land illegally. Further, the internal arrangement/ partition made by the Petitioner has not been approved by the Government. Therefore, the sutrject plot does not fall under Category A of clause 17 of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated

29.08.2023. Lastly, it was contended that S,rction 3(3) of Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and reguliLtion of leases) 23 Act, 2O00 provided that lessees whose lease did not stand terminated on the appointed date as per Section 3(1)(a) shall have the option of being granted freehold rights in lieu of fresh lease under Section 3(3), however, the very lease itself stands terminated for those lessees who fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 3(lxb), which includes (i) misusing of land for a purpose other than the purpose for which land was allotted including non-user; or (ii) sub- letting or transferring the plots or portions of. plots by entering into disguised partnerships ald other unauthorised transfer of interest in the plot; or (iii) violation of any terms, condiLions or covenant specified in the Lease Deed. It is submitted that, even as early as 1979, the allottees of the subject plot resorted to illegal sub- Ietting against which show cause notice dated O4.O7.7979 was issued against them. Further, the partition/ internal division of the plot by the legal heirs of the whole ptot allotted to original allottee is not recognised or approved by the Government. Therefore, Petitioner cannot take recourse of Section 3(3) of the Act.

5. Thereafter, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2O24 seeking amendment of the prayer. In the said Application, 24 it is contendcd that this Court by order date f 23.02-2024 ...i directed the Respondent Authorities to consider t.-re application of Petitioner as falling under Clause 17 (1) Category 'A' rn terms of C').O.Ms. No, 19 dated 29.08.2O23 and receiv€ 100)'o of the milrket valuc to convert the land belonging to Peti[ioner from leerse hold to free hold. The 4e Respondent uide proceedings dated 20.O3.2024 passed orders disposing petitioner's application holding that it is found to be not ,:ligible under Category 'A' ol (i.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.O8.2023. Contending that impugned proceedings dated 20.O3.2O24 pzLssed without any applicatron o[ mind and the same is contralv to record the arnendment petition is hled by petitioner seeking ztmendmen[ of thc prayer in the main writ petition which was alloived by this Court.

6. It rvas contended by Respondents 1 and 2 in the additional counter that admittedly, Petitioner entered into unauthorDed partnership and had let out the srrbject plot to third parties rvithou[ the approval of the Gover rmen t. While originally, the plot was leased to the original allottee for the purpose of establishing Spinning and weaving mills, according to the joint inspection report of 2022, th.e third parties currently 25 in occupation are utilising the valuable Government land as godowns and for other commercial business not amounting to lndustrial purposes. This is a direct and irrefutable violation of Section 3(1) (b) of the Azamabad Industria,l Area (Termination and regulation of leases) Amendment Act, 200O. That, the impugned order dated 20.3.2024 has been passed in accordarrce with G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.Og.2023. It was contended that, no Industrial unit is present in the subject plots as per the Joint Inspection rcport, 2022 and instead, the subject plots are being utilised as godowns and to run commercial businesses. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 2O.3.2O24 riglr,tly held that the peritioner is not eligible under Category 'A' of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.08.2023. It was also contended that on verifying the record and the application filed before the TSIIC/Respondent No.4, it is found that Petitioner never hled any document referring to partnership with the third parties. More particularly, petitioner has not filed the partnership deeds that are now being hled along with LA. No.2 of 2024 in W.P No.47i9 of 2024. Therefore, filing new documents by the Petitioner after rejection order dated

20.3.2024 passed by Respondent No.4 is totally untenable and 26 can be trealed as invented for the purpose of re iei'claimed in the present Wril Petition. lt was contended that by virtue of thr: 2OO0 Act, upon conducting duc enquiry, it is clear that if a person is falling in any of the conditions stipulated in Sect orL 3(1)(b), his lease is liable to be cancelled automatically. 1'ht: Inspection report dated O\.O4.2O22 which is part of the enquiry by respondents clearly demonstrates the fact tha, lease of the original allottee/legal heir stands terminated atrlomatically in terms of the Section 3(1)(a) r/w Section 3(1)(b) as the report clearly divulgcs the fact that some third parties art conducting business which is not in tune/ line with the dr:finition of the Section 2(b) and 2(dl of the Azamabad IrLdustrial Area (Termination and Regulation of leases)Act, 1992.

7. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent contends that Government made amendments to Azmabad Industrial Area (Te -mination and Regulation of Leases) Amendment Act, 1 of 2C OO by making necessary ,,-".rd-..,, to Section 3, giving opt on of freehold rights. Pursuant to the said amendments, G.Cts were issued from time to time including GOMs No.19 dated 29t-O8-2023 in 27 supersession of earlier orders. Under the said G.O. the Government nominated the 4ft respondent as Nodal Agency / Competent Authority for extending freehold rights in respect of Azambad Industrial Estate in accordance with the guidelines stipulated there under and to execute sale deeds, etcetera. Under the said GOMs. No. 19, dated 29_OB_2O23 two categories were made. Under category (AXi) the units in possession of all the original allottees including their legal heirs whether working or not working; (ii) whereas as per joint inspection report of 2022 submitted by the officials of revenue & industries department, the plot is vacant and is in possession of the original allottee and industrial activigr has taken place previously in the allotted p1ot. (iii)The unit holders who came into possession of the unit through the original allottee after obtaining permission of the Government shaIl also be treated as eligibie under this ,,A,, category. The registration value of IOOVo in accordance with the guidelines of the registration department as on date of registration are liable to be charged. In category _ "B" all units excluded under ,,A,, category and in possession of unit holders as per the joint inspection report 2022 submitted by the officials of revenue ald industries department would )Q come. That the registration value of 2OO%o is in accordance of guidelines of registration department as on the date of registration are liable to be charged' The Petitjoner claim as legal heir of original allottee and comes under catt:gory "A" of the above GOMs No. 19 dated 29 -O8 2023 is totally vlgue' incorrect and specihcally denied. Therefore the claim that tre petitioner is willing to pay 100% of the marker value is tota-lly untenable and unsustainable. As a matter of [act, letter datod 14-06-2010 made by petitioner was duly considered by the 4m Respondent' in terms of the orders of this Court d,ated' 23'02 i|024 and claim of petitioner to treat him under category A'of thr said G'O was rejected by passing a reasoned order in letter dated 20 03'2024' The petitioner plot neither an operational/ dornrant industrial unit nor is vacant, on the othcr hand, portions :f ttrc plot was let out by petitioner to the other business enti'ies other thar industrial purpose namely - for commercial plrrpose without obtaining any permission from the Governm rnt' Thus the petitioner unit does not come under Clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of category A' of the said G.O.Ms No. 19, dated 29 ')a 2023 ' 29 8 Learned Special Government Pledder, while concluding his submissions, had relied on tl:re following judgments t. tt. The State of Rajasthan a. Sharwan Kumar Kumanuatl. Coromandel Mining AND Exports Pat. Ltd v Union oJ India (W.P.No.7O364 oJ 2O15 & batch).

9. Petitioner hled reply to the counter of Respondents I ar-d 2. l,earned counsel for petitioner based on the said reply submits that G.O.Ms. No. 19, dated 29.08.2023 was issued with avowed object of conversion of leasehold lands in Azamabad Industrial Area into freehold lands subject to the criteria set out in the said GO. To begin with, the State Government constituted a Joint Inspection Committee comprising Ofhcia-ls of the Industries Department along with those of the Revenue Department to ascertain the status of the utilization of the lands allotted to industrial units and to submit a joint inspection report to the government. As set out in para 12 of the said GO, Joint Inspection Report was submitted on O L04.2O22 to the effect that majority of the units have violated the terms of the lease and were found as not fulfilling the objectives of the ' 2023 Liue Law (SC) 586 30 aliotments and that the lndustrial units were found to be run by sub tenants/ occupiers. It is further stated tlLat the State Government request from such occupants for gra.-rt of free hold rights over the lands. In those circumstances, it appcars that the Government constitutcd a Cabinet Sub-Con-rmittee for resolrrce mobilization. The said Committee in its meeting held on 25.06.2022 decided to extend freehold rights -o all units in the estate. Thereafter, as set out in the GO, revicw meet ing were conducted on 05.O7.2022 and 16.O7.2022 by tl..c' Chief Secretary on the course of action to bc adopted for extending free hold rights to the occupants of land to thr-ee Industrial Estates which include the Azamabad Industrial Iistatr:- From the above, it is clear that notwithstanding the fact ihzrt (he Joint Inspection Rcport disclosed that majorit1 of the units violated the terms of the lease and were found not be fulfilling the objectives of ttre allotment and that most of the ildust ry units were found to be run by sub- tenan L/ occupie rs, the State Government decided to extend grant of freehold rights over tJ.e said lands. It is therefore, clear that violation of thr: condition of lease or failing to fulfil the objectives of the allor-menl by the lease holders was not treated as a material fact fot the purpose l1 of conversion of lease hold to free hold, In that view of the matter, various averments in the Additional Counter Affidavit and reference to Section 3(lXb) of the Act, 2O0O are wholly irrelevant for the putpose of the present writ petition. It was further contended that in G.O.Ms No 19, the State Government on further examination of the issue and taking into account the observation made by this Hon,ble Court in order dated 23.06.2023 in WA.No.634 of 2023 set out the policy guidelines and rules regarding regularization of the property. Thereupon, Government categorized the Industrial Estate into Category ,A, and 'B'. Category 'A' Sub Category (i) reiates to units in possession of the original allottees including their legal heirs whether working or not. Sub Category (i) refers to plots which are vacant and are in the possession of the original allottee and where industrial activity had taken place previously in the allotted plot. Sub Category (ii) relates to unit holders who came into possession of the Unit through the original allottees, after obtaining permission of the Govt. Category B comprises a,ll other units excluding those set out in Category,A,and in possession of the respective unit holders as per the joint inspection report of 2022. Thus, the requirement delineated in Category A (i) are i'i '1 I 32 that the original allottees or their legal representative should be in possession of the unit whether or not :here is any manufacturing activity in the said Unit. The Petiliorlers case is that there are the legal representatives of the original allottee and are in possession of the units. That, serial No-24 of the Joint Inspection Report dated 1.4.2022 relates to thr: subject lands. Under the column which relates to name of the Company/Allottee along with the address (Name of the Original Allottee) the name of Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Ra: I\4 C Mills is mentioned. The said Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai is the grandfather of the Petitioner. Under column relating to details of the present occupier it was mentioned as legal hcirs of Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai MC Mills, the original allottt:e. Under the column relating if leased/lessor name, it is ment.oned as legal heirs of Shiva Dut Rai are using office and let oLIl to Sai Balaji packing, RR Offset printers and Deepthi printers. Therefore, what has been set out in the Joint Inspection Reprrl is that the original allottee was the grandfather of the Petit oner and the Petitioner is in occupation in their capacity of legrrl heirs of the original allottee and some parts have been a11egt:dly leased in 33 favour of Sai Balaji packing, RR Offset printers and Deepthi printers. It was further contended that impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O24 is without any application of mind as the 4e Respondent failed to understand the issue in correct perspective inasmuch as the fact that, once it is not disputed that Petitioner is the legal heir of the originai allottee and being in possession, his Application directly falls under Clause 17 (1) Category 'A' of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23 and therefore, the 4th respondent ought have considered the case of Petitioner under relevant rule without any setf- imposed restrictions. The order of the 4ft Respondent only contains the extract of the relevant para of GO and the order is wholly without any application of mind and bereft of any reasons much less valid and justifiable reasons. The contention of Respondents that Petitioner violated Section 3(1)(b) of 2000 Act is without any merit lor the same was not preceded by any enquiry as contemplated under Section 3(1)(a). Petitioner was undertaking industrial activity as on the appointed date of coming into force the Amendment Act, 20O0 and once no action has been taken under 3(1)(a) read with 3(1)(b) of 2OOO Act for termination of leases, Petitioner is eligible I I I I ir. J+ for grant of free hold nights under Section 3 (3) t'etitioner had been making Applications and representations sint:e 2O04 under every new scheme/ poiicy/ GO of the State Government introduced for grant of free hold rights, right fronr 20(14 to the Iatest being in 2024 and had also attended personal l-rezLring but never a hnal decision was taken by Respondents gtanting frec hold rights to any of the lessees and the requestr; were put off on one pretext or the other. Therefore, after this ength of time and after accrual of rights. in favour of petitioner tlnder Section 3 (3), it is not open for Respondents to allege that l)etitioncr violated Section 3(1)(b) of the 2000 Act. It we s vehemently contended that the issue for consideration of thir; Cor-rrt in the present []s is whether Petitioner violated Section 3 (l Xb) of 2000 Act or whether lease of petitioner is to bc -erminated or dctermined but the issue for consideration is whether Petitioner as a legal heir of the originat allottee is in posse:;sion or not to fall under Category 'A' of G.O.Ms. No. 19 dated 2lt 08 2023 The Joint Inspection report as well as the impugned orrler dated 2O.O3.2O24 ol the 4fr Respondent and also in thc counter aflrdavit filed by Respondents I and 2, they have categorically stated that several legal heirs of the Original allottee are in 35 possession of the subject land and once the same is admitted, Respondents are obligated to consider the case of Petitioner as falling under Category 'A' of G.O.Ms No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23. lt was further contended that according to G,O.Ms. No. 19 dated 29 .O8.2O23, once it is not disputed that Petitione r is the legal heir of the original allottee, his Application directly falls under Clause 17 (l) Category'A'and th. ".*. cannot be denied on the sole ground that no industrial activity is going on. The State Government as early as in.2004 by a press notification made a conscious decision to shift industrial activily from Azamabad, as by that time it was surrounded by thick residential population and had also imposed restrictions through the Pollution Control Board to restrict industrial activity at Azamabad. Petitioner found it difhcult to run industrial activity in the subject land as proper permissions were denied by the State Government and in tune with the decision of the Government, gradualty industrial activity had come to a standstill at Azamabad Industrial Area. The State Government, on the one hand, took a decision to shift industrial activity out of Azamabad and on the other, denied benefits to Petitioner on the ground that no industrial activity is taking place in the subject land. The Joint Inspection Report, in 36 unequivocal terms under the heading 'present occr,rpier' states that legal heirs of original allotee Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai are in possession and occupation. The impugned crder dated 20 .O3.2024 u,hile erroneously rejecting the Applica tion also states that scveral legal heirs of original allottee arc in possession of the subject land and further, in tlre earlier counter filed by this Respondent also, it ir; cat.egorically mentioned that legal heirs are in possession of la-rds. Section 3 (1)(a) of the 2O0O Act clearly states, an enquiry ner:ds to be conducted before taking any action under Section 3 (1)(b) of the 20OO Act. Further, the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act, 20O0 clearly states that automatic termination under the AcL, 1992 was challenged before this (lourt and later u'as carried to the Hon'be Supreme Court and that the Government considered it necessary to amend the Act suitably by making a special provision to foilow due pror:edure of show cause notice for termination of existing leases. Therefore, the slatement that lease has been automatically terminated is misconceived and without any merit

10. This Court has given anxious attention to the rival submissions of both the parties and perused thr: entire record. )t /' In order to resolve the present fts, it is apposite to have a look at the relevant provisions of iaw and G.O dealing with the said issue. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No. i9, dated 29.Og.2O23 is extracted hereunder: " 17 . In such circumstances the matter was examined in detait and after careful consideration of the matter goyernment has decided to issue freehold rights to the existing occupants/ industriaiists in Azamabad Industrial Area. Accordingly, Gorrimment in'supersession of the orders issued in reference 4rh to gft read aboie, hereby issue the following orders in order to regularise the industrial plots occupanis/ industrialists in Azamabad Industrial Area: L The units in the Azaamabad,Industrial Estate shalt be categorised into the following two categories: CATEGORY A - (i) The unlts ln possession of all the original allottees inclurting their legat heirs whether worklng or not wo4king. (ii) Where, as per the joint inspection reporL ot 2022 submitted by the officials of revenue and industries department, the plot is vacant and is in posiLion of the Original allottee and industrial actrvitv has taken place previously in the allotted ptot. The unit holders who came into possession of the unit through the original allottee after obtaining permission of the government shall also be treateJ as eligible under this category. (iii) CATEGORY B - (il II. All other units excluding Category A, in possession of the respective unit holders as per the joint inspection report of 2022 submitted bv the oflicials of revenue aJId irldustries department. Government, conscious of the fact that the original allottees were the first to respond to Governmenl s call ot ind ustrialisation of the State and for thal cause invpsted their time, money and efforts to create employment for the people of the state leading to "Unit development of the state, hxed the rate for these holders at 1000% of registration value and for others at 20oolo of registration value, even though the same is far below the prevailing market value, in recognition of 38 "Registration Department' '1"--','81:"x':::'.;:ll"'"'i ii, their efforts- Accordingly' the Government has frxed the ,h"". tlvo categories as follows: ;;;;";; til: Category A: Iooo/o oI '1"-l:*il'i:'.:.::i:.'""il r; c date of registratlonl 1 [r,,,"u."" oi the category B: 2o0olo. ot I; p .lale of registratlon) Ir-ii.iln"" of the ReBistration Departmen In view of the fact that the Azamabad [n('ustrial area is ir,. t."tt of the ciry surrounded b) residentral area and in order to encorrrase lhese industries lo ""*'i, line oi activity to e"nvironm':ntalll iriendlv l;;';; ;:;;ftlJ;;;;i;ied in the area or to diversirv into other ;:ii;';i;; "i.l.i't"a in rhar area' rh'r Go\ernmenl il..o"'r.ti."tt to change of land use fro n Industnal to .';t.|orv' du"lv collecting the equircd fee as :;;:i.t Per GHMC rates"' tl;: III AzamaLrad Industrial Area (Termi eation and 1 i . Regr-riation of Leases) Amendment Act No 1 of 2O()O came into force with effect from 17 'O2 '2OOO ' The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder: ' (l)(a) Termitration of Leases: Section 3 Notwithstanding anythrng contained in the IndiarL Contract Act' |8T2,theTransferofPropertyAct,1882,oranyotherlarvforthetime being in force, and the terms and conditions of any lt ase entered into orotherarrangementmadewithanypersoninrespectofany demisecl plot either by the erstwhile Nizam's Goverllment or by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad or by the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh prior to the appointed date' all those leasos' sub-leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or otherwise in respect of all demised plots in Azamabad lndrrstrial Area which after due enquiry attract one or more of the qround for cancellation of Iease as specified in clause (b) shall stand terminated 1:. 39 on the appointed date and there upon all such leases, sub leases or any other arrangement whatsoever made by the person in occupation of the demised plot shall stand annulled arld every such demised plot shall vest in the Govemment free from all encumbrances- Section 3 (I)(b) - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other lar.!'for the time being in force, the leases of plots or portions shall be cancelled on either all or any of the following grounds namely; - (i) misusing of land for a purpose other than the purpose for which lald was allotted including non-user; or (ii) Sub- letting or transferring the plots or portions of plots by entering into disguised partnerships and other unauthorised transfer of interest in the'plot; or (ii! Violation of any terms, conditions or covenant . specified in the lease deed Explanation: For the purpose of this Act., where a lessee enters into a partnership, agreement or other arrangement for carrying on any activity whatsoever on the demised plot, then notwithstanding, anything in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 it shall also be deemed to be a violation of the conditions of the lease."

12. It is also imperative for this Court to look into the ' enact the Azamabad object/ intention of the Legislature to Industrial Area (Termination and regulation of leases) Act, 1992 for the purpose of adjudicating the present lis. The relevant portions are extracied hereunder, l. Object and reasons of the Azamabad Industrial Area Termination and Regulation of leases) Act, 1992 - 40 ll. Whereas an Industrial area Knolvn as ]ndustrial Area, Azamabad I ty'derabad had been selected antl estaf,lished by the ersti!'hile Nizam's Government with th'' sole object of establishing industries and the said Industrial area was rleveloped into different sizes of plots wit I infrastructure facilities for leasing them out to persons int.ncing to set up Industries: And whereas the developed plots in the Inclustrial Area, Azamabad, H-vderabad, were leased out to variolls persons under varying terms and conditions inclu<ling payment of rents by adopting different forms of lease deec s: And ,,r,hereas it has come to the notice of the Government that contain lessecs or occupants are putting the Plots of portions of plots to unauthorised uses and certain ottrer lessees or occupants are misusing valuable industriaj urban land for residential purposes as also for warehousing itctjvit\' Ancl whereas, it has also come to the noLice o the Government that some lessees are sub letting or transfer ring the plots of portions of plots by entering into disguised rartnerships and transfer of shares of companies to secure least: hold transfers; 13 Likevgise, it is also essential to menliotl about few definitions in the Azamabad Industrial Area (Ter-mination and Regulation of leases) Acl, 7992; Section 2(b): "Azamabad Industrial Atea" means the lald orvned by Government and situated at Mushirabad \r'ithin the limits of Hyderabad municipal Corporation, Jivided into plots 41 I. of different sizes for industrial purpose by the erstwhite Nizam's Government and known as Azamabad Industrial Area; Section 2(d) - "Demised plot" means any plot of Iand or thereof in the Azamabad Industrial Area, which has been leased out to any person for lndustrial use either by erstwhile Nizam's Government or by the Government of Hyderabad or by the Government of Andhra Pradesh or in respect of which there is other arrangement with any person; Section 3 - Tcrmination of leases.:- Not withstanding anything contained in the Indian contract Act, 1872, the transfer of property Act, 1882 1872 Contract Act 4 of 1882. or any other law of the time being in force, and the terms and conditions of any lease entered into or other arrurngement made with any person in respect of any demised plot either by the erstwhile Nizam's Government or by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad or by the Government of Andhra Pradesh prior to the appointed date, all leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or otherwise. in respect of all demised plots in the Azamabad Industrial Area, shatl stard terminated on the appointed date and thereupon all sub-leases or any other arrangements whatever made by the person in occupation to hold possession of the demised plot shall stand annulled and every such demised plot shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and shalt be used subsequently for industrial purpose only. (2) Upon the termination of the lease or other arran8ement under sub-section (1), the rights and liabilities as between the parties to the lease or other arrangement shall cease and determine, but any amount due to ttre Govemment from the aforesaid person under the leasg or other arrangement so terminated shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue."

14. On careful reading of the above provisions of the 1gg2 Act, this Court hnds that in view of Sections 2(b) & 2(d) ol the Azamabad Iniustrial Area (Termination and Regulation of leases) Act, 1992, rt is succinctly evident that the very object/intent of the Legislature is to allot plots ,of different sizes 42 only for industrial purpose and for no other purpcse. By virtue of tlne 1992 Act coming into force and in terms oJ Section 3(1), all leases were terminated on the appointed day. I{owever, after lengthy Court litigation, the State Government has brought amendment to the Act, 1992, rnore particularly Section 3 in 2OOO which resulted in the Azamabad Inclustrial Area (Termination and Regulation of leases) Amendment Act, 2O00. In 2000 Act, amendment \.r'as only brought to the Preamble, Sections 3, 4, 5, 1 1, 19 & 21 , tlne remaining provisions of the 1992 Act have remained intact and the same are slill in force.

15. As per Section 3(1)(a) of the 2OOO Act, what is to be noted is not',vithstanding anything contained ir-r the Indian Contract Act, 7872, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or any other law for the time being in force, and the terms and conditions of any lease entered into or other arrangement made with any person in respect of any demised plot either by the erstwhile Nizam's Government or by the erstwhik: Government of Hyderabad or by the Government of Andhra Przrdesh prior to the appointed date, all those leases, sub-lea:;es or other arrangements made or entered into through a regir;tered deed or otherwise in respect of all demised plots in Azarr,al>ad Industrial 43 Area which after due enquiry attract one or more of the ground for canceilation of lease as specified in clause (b) shall stand terminated on the appointed date and there upon ali such leases, sub-leases or any other arrangement whatsoever made by the person in occupation of the demised plot shall stand annulled and every such demised plot shall vest in the Government lree from all encumbrances.

16. From the perusal of the record, the undisputed fact is that originally, Plot..Nos. 3, 3lL to 3/7, in Azamabad Industrial Area had been given on lease to M/ s Shivdat Rai Gulab Rai for 99 years for setting up of Spinning and Weaving Mills in the year 1952. Thereafter, Inspection Report dated O3.O2.I979, Mr Mukund Lal, Sri Amruittal, Sri Madusudan, Sri Aravind Komar and Mr Bharath Kumar as partners of Super Steel Distributors and Manufacturers went into production in November 1977. It was also stated in the Inspection report that Mahaveer spinning Waste Plant is a partnership hrm occupying 2383 sq yards and was running at the time of inspection and improved the production activities. Thereafter, partition was effected among the legal heirs and three applications were made to the Government seeking recognilion of such arrangement and 44 for execution of lease deeds to that effect. The :-equest of the occupants of Plot No.3, 3/1 to 3/7 was forwarded to Government vide Lr. No.224 I IAA/66. dated 03-04- 1979 with a recommendation to allow one year time for esta blishing their respective plants. In the meanwhile, due to unauthorised subletting construc tions/ alterations, a show cause notice was issued on O4.O7 .lg7g and they have replied ot O9.O7 .1979. Finally, they were directed not to take up any addilional unauthorized construc tion/ alterations till a decision is taken by the Government on their representations for establishing their respective units vide Letter dated 29.Oa.1979 . Further based on the representations made by all the partners, a meeting was conducted by Additional DI, RDO and DDTC anrl <lecided the entire plot No.3, 3/ 7 to 317 to be divided to all the partners and the Government was addressed vide Lr.No. 14970 /1 AA|T3, daLed 72.07.1984 recommending the extent of acres to be ailotted and lease deeds to be executed separately i.e., 1) Gulab Rao - 3076.5O Sq.Yards, 2) Prahlad Rai - 6527.5tr Sq.yards, 3) Sunder Mal - 7Og2.5O Sq.Yards and 4) Bilas Rai 74gt.SO Sq.Yards in all total 24l2a.OO Sq.yards. Florvever, the Government sought certain clarification on the abcve proposals. 45 The Director of Industries furnished their reports on 19-11-1985, O2-O7-1986, 05-08-1986. The Government again requested for some more information on 06-08- 1986. After protracted correspondence, the Government urde DO Lr.No. 1383/IF CelllT9-36, dated 2O-O7-1989 have requesred the Director of Industries to conduct physicai verihcation of the plots and furnish modified draft show cause notices as per the opinion of the Government Pleader. The Supervisor, AIA, Hyderabad or 28-07 -1989 inspected the area in Plot Nos. 3, 3/ 1 to 3/7 and reported the extent of areas under the possession of each Partner along with the particulars of sub-lessees. According to the sketch, the cotal extent of area of all plots is coming to 23380 sq yards. However no approval was given by the Government to the partition affected by the legal heirs of original allottee among themselves. At this juncture, to curb misuse of the Government lands at Azamabad Industrial Area, The Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992 came to be enacted. The Joint Inspection report dated O1.O|.2O22 reveals that Plot Nos.3, 3/1 to 3/Z is presently in the occupation of the several legal heirs of the original allottee. The Inspection report also reveals that no 46 industrial unit is being operated by the legal heirs in the said plot. However, the plot is also not vacant. Inst:ad, the legal heirs in occupation of the subject piot have illegallv let out portions of the plot to several business concerns such as M/s Sai Balaji Packaging, M/ s RR Offset Printers. M/ s Deepti Printers, M/s Big Apple on rent, to run th,-'ir respective commercial businesses. Therefore, this court hnc.s rhat in view of enquiry by way of Joint Inspection report date d O1.O4.2O22 and also in view of legal heirs in occupation of the subject plot have letting out portions of the plot to several busitress concerns such as M/s Sai Balaji Packaging, M/s R R Offset Printers, M/s Deepti Printers, M/s Big Apple on rent, to run their respective commercial businesses squarely attracts Section 3(1)(b) of the 2O00 Act, resultantly, the lease of subject plot is deemed to bc terminated in terms of Section 3(t) (a) and all the arrangements whatsoever made by the person in occupation of the demised plot shall stand annulled and every such demised 1;lot shail vest in the Government free from all encumbrancerr. As such, petitioner's case cannot be considered under the head of Category A' since the petitioner do not ht into any of the clauses mentioned in Category A'of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated I:\.9.2023. 17 - The above finding is also fortihed by the detailed order of this Court dated 23.6.2023 in I.A.No. I of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.634 of 2023 which has also taken similar view in regard to very same issue. While that being so, this Court also finds considerable force in the contentions of the petitioner that is the petitioner has been making applications and representations since 2OO4 under every new scheme/policy/GO of the State Government introduced for grant of free hold rights, right from 2OO4 to the latest being in 2024 ard had also attended personal hearing but never a hnal decision was taken by the Respondents gralting free hold rights to any of the lessees and the requests were put off on one pretext or the other. Therefore, after this length of time and after accrual of rights in favour of Petitioner under Section 3 (3), it is not open for the Respondents to allege that the Petitioner had violated the Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 2000. As rightly contended by iearned Senior Counsel Sri Sitaram Murthy, the issue for consideration of this Court in the present fts is not whether petitioni:rs have violated Section 3 (1)(b) of 2000 Act or whether the lease of petitioner is to be terminated or determined but the issue for consideration is whether petitioner as a legal heir of the original 48 allottee are in possession or not to fal1 under Oateg()ry 'A' of G.O.Ms. No. 19, dated29 Oa.2023.

18. This Court already opined that petitiorler czrnnot fall under Category A' of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23 more particularly in view of the enquiry and as well as the Joint Inspection report dated 1.4.2022. Therefore, the z.t, respondent has rightly passed the order dated 2O.O3.2O24 stating that petitioner is not eligible under Category A' of Clause 17 of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.8.2023.

19. Now it is germane to refer to the contents in G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.A.2O23, relevant clauses are extracted hereunder:

12. The Government " Memo No.2901/ Prl. Secy/ Indus/ Pesh/ 2020 dated 29.1.2A2O ordered to conduct Joint Inspection of Azamabad Industrial Est€.te by officials of the Industries Department along with the officiirls of Revenue Department to ascertain the status of utilization of the lands allotted to Industrial units and to submit a Joint Inspecticn report to the Government. Accordingly, the General Manager, Diitrict [ndustnes Centre, Hyderabad has submitted Joint inspectiorr report on 1.4.2022. As per-Joint inspection report, it was seen that majority of the units have violated the terms of lease and were forrnd not fulfilling the objectives of the allotment. Further, most of the lnclustrial units rvere found to be run by sub-tenants/occupiers an<l requests were received from such persons for grant of freehold r-ights over this Government land.

13. In view of the above, the Cabinet sub-commitlee for resource mobilization, iu its Eeeting held oI1 25.6.2022 has decided to extend freehold rights to all the units in the Eistate. Review meetings were conducted on 5.7.2022 and 16.7.2022 by the Chief Secretary, on the court of action to be adopted for exlending freehold 49 rights to tie occupants of land in three industrial estates, which includes the Azamabad Industrial estate.

14. Sunsequently vide reference 7e read above, the Government has taken decision to categorize the Units operating in the Azamabad Industrial Estate into two categories and fix their respective rates of the consideration value for granting freehold rights in respect of the Government land at Azamabad Industrial Area. Further, vide reference 8ft read above, the Government had reclassifred Category A.

15. The lease of the Government lands in Azamabad Industrial Area, Azamabad has been terminated in accordance with the Az-anllabad Industrial Area (Termination. and Regulation of Leases) Act, 1992 amended by act one of the year 2000, and the possession of the land is vested with Government. The existing units were not evicted immediately because the Units rvorking in the Azarnabad Industrial Area were providing employment to good number o[ people-

16. On further examination of the issue and following the observations made by ,.the Hontrle High Court in order dated 23-6.2023 in W.a.No.634 of 2023, that a policl, guidelines and rules regarding regularization of property concerned may be gramed after following proper procedure, with appropriate sanctions and approvals vide a Government Order, clearly delineating the appropriate reasons and objects behind the said policy decision of the Government and the class of persons entitled to be regularized shall be specifically mentioned without any scope for ambiguity- [t was decided that the Memo No.501/IP & INF/AI/2OIA, Dt.29.A.2O22 be withdrawn and issue the following orders- Further it is decided that units in whose favour sale deeds were executed on payment of full consideration as per reference 7ff read above, need not further take arly steps as the plot occupied by them is completely vested".

20. From the bare reading of the above, it is explicit that the Government has decided to issue freehold rights to the existing occupants/ Industrialists in Azamabad Industrial Area. From the above ehunciation of lacts and reasons given, it is clear that petitioner cannot be falling under Category A'of the G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.8.2023. However, since petitioner is 50 still an existing occupant who does not satisfy the conditions mentioned in Category A' has automatically lalls under Category 'B' ol G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.O8.2O23 r.t l-rich clearly stzrtes that all other units excluding Category A' in possession of the respeclive unit holders as per the Joint Inspectirtn report of '2022 submitted by the Ofhcials of revenue and Industries Department. Resultantly, the rate prescribed in Category 'B' shall be applicable to petitioner i.e., 2OOo/o of the registration value as on the date (i.e. date of registration) in ac:orda nce with the guidelines of Registration Department. 21 . Coming to the decisions relied upon t)y thr: learned Special Government Pleader, this Court hnds the ,;aid decisions arc not applicable to the facts of the present case since the said decisions deals rvith the aspect of legitimate expr)ctation. The decision of rhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sharwan Kumar Kumawat'is rvith regard to person's right to <:laim that he should be granted mining lease in any land belrnging to the Government and the issue therein was that the right being not Iegal, apart from being non-existent, it can cerlainll' be not enforceable. Therefore the said decisions has nc, relevance to the present case. With respect to the second d,:cision of the 5l Division Bench of this Court in Coromand.el Mining and. Exports htt. Ltd.. case, the learned Special Government Pleader has emphasised on the issue of the policy decision of the Government. This Court does not dispute with the settled principle of law with respect to the policy decision of the Government and limitations of interference by this Court. Admittedly, the Government itself has taken decision to issue satisfying the conditions free hold rights however by categorizing the existing units upon in G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated .mentioned 29.4.2023 and petitioner being the existing occupant who does not fall under Category 'A'as stated supra will automatically fall under Category 'B', therefore, as stated supra, rate prescribed in Category 'B' shall be applicable to petitioner i.e., 2OOo/o of the registration value as on the date (i.e., date of registration) in \ accordance with the guidelines of Registration Department. 22. This Court finds that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.l9 dated 29.O8.2023, petitioner being the existing occupant who does not fall under Category A' will automatically fall under Category 'B', therefore, the rate prescribed in Category ,E}, shall be applicable to petitioner i.e. 2OO%o of the registration value as 52 I on the date (i.e., date of registration) in accordzLn<:e rvith the guidelines of Registration Department.

23. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to convert the subject land of petitioner i-e- 6376 Square Yards bearing Plot Nos.3,3/1 to 317 it Azamabad Industrial Estate, Hyderabad from lease hold to free hokl in terms of Clause 17 Category'B' of G.O.Ms.No'l9 date d 29.8.2(/23, however, by collecting 2OO%o of the registratiolr value as on the date (i.e. date of .registration) including any other charges in accordance with the guidelines of Registration Department.

24. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposcd of with the above direction. No costs.

25. Conseque ntly, Miscellaneous Applica ticrns, if any SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR shall stand closed. Note : That the typographical error crept in reading the paragraph No.23 in Order, dated 01-05-2025 in W.P No.4723 of 2024 as extracted therein. The sarne is corrected and amended forthwith, as per the Court Order, dated 08-07-2025 in LA.No.1 of 2025. This Amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 01 -O7 -2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY D=PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER T.he Principal Secretery, lndustries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner of lndustries, Government of Telangzrna, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids. Hyderabad To, 1 2

3. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 4. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSIIC 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 04.

5. One CC to SRI KANDURI KOUSHIK, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 8 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK 4i. HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 08107t2025 \ AMENDED ORDER WP.No.4723 of 2024 fr,' - s t,i k a^ /'J' .C iL) -J ), ,1, 02 sEP 206 L Ltr i I .Drl .t.C -{ €- t-\ t I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS $ ^ \t