The High Court · 2025

Sri D'V' Seetharamamurthy' learned Senior 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Koushik Kanduri' learned counsel for petitioner sutrmits that for the purpose of Economic Development, the Nizam Government dur\ng 7927 formed a committee consisting of (i) Superintending Engineer' City Improvement Board ii) Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ii) Commissioner' City Police (iv) The Director' 2 Commercial Industries and (r) Superintending Engineer, Electricitv to select an area for industries and factories. The said Committees acquired land to an extent of Acs.136_04 guntas in Azamabad out of the funds provided by the Industrial Trust. Later, total area was divided into g6 plots of different srzes and leased out [o Industrialists who intended to set up industries and use the same for industrial for a period of 99 purposes years. The then Superintending Engineer, City Improvement Board handed over the prots in industrial Area to the Industrial Trust Fund through Lr. No. 9/37F /Tor8 dated 29.12.rgs2. rr is contended that the said Industrial Trust F.und acting for and on behalf of the Government of Hyderabad executed lease deeds in favour of M/s Shivdathrai Gutab Rai, a partnership firm consisting of four partners Gulabrai, prahalaclrai, Sunclermal and Bilas.ai. originally, M/s Shivdathrai Gurab Rai was allotted Plot No.3/ 7 uid.e Agreement of Lease dated rg.o7. 1946 and later plot Nos.3/2 to 3/7 uide Agreement of Lease dated 21.O1.1952 to set up Mahavir Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills in an area admeasuring total extent of 22290 Sq. yards in Azamabad Industrial Area. petitioner is the son of one of the partners Sri prahaladrai, original allottee of lease. petitioner,s J familY

1.e. petitioner's father and Petitioner have been rn of the subject Property ut. of the said' tolal extent of an industry and undertaking and enjoYment absolute Possesslon admeasuring 2499 Sq' Yards o 22290 Sq' Yards bY setting uP 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-inciustrial use and to have uniform terms and conditions of lease' the Government Area (Termination and Reguiation enacted Azamabadlndustrial 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 ll'O7 lgg2 and the persons in occupation of the lands were required to apply for a fresh lease' Aggrieved by the said termination of lease' several Industrial Units of Azamabad have hled Writ Petition No'12223 of 1994 and batch before this Court to declare the said act as unconstitutional' This Colr:l uide order dated 18'O8' 1904 dismissecl the said Writ Petitions upholding the constitutional validity of Act 15 of 1992' Aggrieved thereby' Civil Appeals No' 1 8852 of l9O4 and batch were filed in Supreme Court. By order dated 18.O4.1900, the said cases were disposed of on the assurance given by the State Government that Act 15 of 1992 would be suitably amended. It was directed that no action agalnst the Industries the Industrial Area operating 1n concerned should be Supreme Court also Government that placed beibre The Hon,ble taken under the said Act recorded the submission of the State ProPosal of amendment has already been the Cabinet and that no acrion regarding ease againsl that indusrries conccrned r.rould be cancellation of I It was contended that in view of the above order, the State Government amended the principal Act as Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Amendment Act No. I ol 2000 which came into force il.. e. f. 17.o2.2ooo incorporating a provision for gralt of freehotd rights to the Inclustrial Units of Azamabad industrial Area. Accordingly, Section 3 was also suitably amended under which lessees were entitled to a fresh grant of lease from the appointed date and in lieu of the renewal of leases, the said lessees may opt for freehold rights in respect of the dernised p1ots. It was 5 further contended that the 1"t respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Sectio n 2l of the Act' issued G O'Ms'No 87 dated2o.o22oo2,wderwhichtheoccupants/lesseesonthe dateofappointeddaywererequiredtoapplyont'heirownfor conversion ol leasehold rights to freehold rights by paying a price equivale nt to 7 5o/o of the market value as on 17 'O2'2OOO' To the same effect, in 2004' Notification dated 17 'O2 2OO4 was issuecl inviting applications in the prescribed format from the occupant/ industrialist for grant of freehold rights in Azamabad Industrial Area under the provisions of Act 1 of 2OOO withln 30 days from the issuance of Notification ln response' Petitioner in the name of original allottee M/s Shivdatrai Gulabrai made Application daLed 17 'O3'2O04' but there was no response from the Respondents, therefore' petitioner made several such Applications as reminders on 19'05'2O0 4' 27 'O7 2OO4 and 08.02.2005' The 2'd Respondent uide lettet dated 02'08'2005 informed that a personal hearing was fixed on 22'O8'2OO5 an'd askedtoproducedocumentaryevidence'ifanyinadditionto what has already been furnished aiong with the Application' Petitioner along with others attended Personal hearrng on dated O1.09.2005, furnished 22.Oa.2OOS and bY letter' 6 additional documents as requested. But, however, no decision was taken on the Application of petitioner along with severar other occupants/applicants despite making oral and r.r.ritten requests to receive the payment at Z Sok market value and convert the leasehold rights to freehold. Le arned Senior Counsel further submits that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 24.7I-.2O0g in supersession of the earlier orders, fixing the market value for conversion of land by collecting market value at the rates prevailing as on 17.O2.2OOO. petitioner applied under the said GO but was of no avail as no demand was macle lbr payments and land u-as not converted to freehold and no sale deeds were executed in favour of any of the industrialist/ occupan ts despite numerous requests anci constant foliow up with the Authorities. Further it was contended that in 2O2O, the 1st Respondent directed the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hyderabad to conduct a Joint Inspection along with officials of Revenue Department under the guidance of District CoUector to ascertain status of utilization of the ialds aliotted to Industrial Units. The Joint Inspection report was submitted stating that Sg units including TSRTC plots were in possession 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 ln tune with the said decision, Government issued a Memo No 50 1 / IF & INF/A1/2018 d'ated' 29 08'2022 deciding to issue freehold rights by fixing the price for original allottees as 10070 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 in terms of the above said Memo dated 29.O8.2022 along with all the necessary documents requesting to convert the subject iand to freehold' In response to the same, the 1=t Respondent issued Demand Notice dated 25.1O.2022 demanding Rs'242'96'77 '58Ol- (Rupees Two Hundred and Forty Two Crore Ninety Six Lakh Sevenly Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only) towards freehold charges hxing the same at 2OOoh of the market value ignortng the fact that Petitioner and other owners of Plot Nos' 3' 3/ 1 to 317 irr.Azamabad Industrial Estate' Hyderabad are the legal heirs of original allottees and are chargeable at 1O07o of the market value. Petitioner along with others in response to the said demand notice, issued reply dated 28'lO'2O22 informing 8 that registration value as on that day was Rs.54,5OO/- per Sq. yard and when the same is calculated against the total extent, it comes to Rs. 121,4g,3g,790/- (Rupees one Hundred and rwenQz one crore Fortlr Eight Lakh Thirty Eight rhousand even Hundred and Ninet5r Only) and requested to amend the demand notice. It was further contended that despite repeated requests, no action rvas taken by the Respondent Authorities. That, Notice dated 14.Og.2O23 was issr_red to make payments towards freehold rights in accordance u,ith Demand Notice and in default, legal proceedings lvould be initiated for eviction In the said notice, rt is clearly mentioned that petitioner has not availed ther benefit by paying market value at 20O%o as per Memo dated 29 .Oa.2O22. The said Notrce q.,as served on 28'08'2023 for which reply dated 30.o8.2o23 was fired informing that they are the original allottees ald cannot be charged aL ,2OOo/o market value and no action was taken on the same till date. According to learned Senior counsel, the lsr Respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.Og.2o23 in supersessron of all the earlier orders and memo to regularize the industrial plots by granting freehold rights to the existing occupants in Azamabad Industrial Area. Under Clause 17 (l) of o thesaidGO,IndustrialUnitshavebeencategorizedintotwo 'A' and Category B'' Category 'A' is covered categories Category 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 allottees and industrial activity has taken place previously All other units excluding Category 'A' falls under Category 'B'' Original Allottees falling under Category 'A' are required to pay lOO% and Category 'B' are required to pay 2OO%o of the market value as freehold charges' Thal G.O.Ms.No.19 dated' 29 08'2023 is in tune with or reiteration with certain clarifications of the earlier Memo No'501 /IF & INF/AI/2018 daLed 29 'O8 '2022 even under which the original allottees were required to pay 100% of the market value as freehold charges and others at 2OOok' It is submitted that Petitioner being the legal heir of theoriginalallotteeisrequiredtopayonlyl00%ofthemarket value and accordingly made Application dated 2l 'lO '2023 to Respondents that Petitioner along with others are willing to pay 100% of the market value which comes to Rs' 121'48pa'79O1- for the entire extent of 22290 Sq' yards and requested to grant l0 freehold rights and execute deeds separately to each of them in terms of G.O.Ms.No.19. As there was no reply from the Respondr:nts again, petitioner aiong with others made representation dated 12.02.2024 as a reminder ancl set out the entire background by stating all the applications made by the Petitioner since 2OO2 and how the same were kept pending by the Respondent Authorities lrrithout taking any action and demanding any amounts on all the occasions. Lastly, it was conLended that Section 3 (3) ofAct 1 of 2000 conlers a right on the leaseholders to opt for free hold in lieu of rcneu.al of lease. Therefore, the request of petitioner to convert his land to free hold is based on statutory rights conferred to him under Act 1 of 2000 and the same cannot be denied ard be kept pending forever after the formal guidelines for implementation of the Petitioner made Applications to Respondent times under different Government same are issued Authorities four orders, of Act 1 memos and ins[ructions since Section 3 (3) of 2OOO came rnto force and right has been created in favour of Petitioner but no finai decision has been taken and the same is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to dereliction of duties of the Respondent Authorities. Further, Clause 17 (i) ot G.O.Ms.No. 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 1O0% of the market value' Therefore' Petitioner being lhe legal heir of original allottee is liable to pay only loOyo 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 Pe[itioner for convcrsion of subject land to freehold in terms of Section 3 (3) oi the Act I of 2OOO and Clause 17 (1) Category 'A' of G'O'Ms'No 19 dated 29 'Oa '2023 by collection lOO% of market value in accordance with Clause 17 (II), Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and grave injury while also suffering monetary loss' InitiallY, this Court uide order dated 23 '2 '2024 and 4 to consider the APPiication of directed ResPondents 1 Petitioner as falling under Clause 17 (l) Category 'A' in terms of G.O.Ms.No.l9 dated 29 'O8 '2023 and receive 100% of the market value to convert his land admeasuring 2499 Sq' yards bearing Plot.No.3,3/1 to 317 in Azamabad- Industrial Estate' Hyderabad from lease-hold to freehold forthwith' pending disposal of Writ

3. 2 Petition. pursuant to the said rnterim direction, the 4h respondent i.e. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. had considered the representations of petrtioner and passed rejection order dated 2O.3.2O24 stating that petitioner is not eligible under Category A of Clause 17. 4. Learned Special Government pleader Sri Su,aroop Oorilla appearing on behalf of learned Government pleader for lndustries & Commerce admits formation of Committec by Nizam Government and acquisition of land from out o1. the funds provided by the Inclustrial Trust F.und and leasing out to industrialists for industrial purposes for a period 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 datecl 29_12_lgJ2. However, later on, to curb misuse/unauthorrzed use of Government land, other irreguiarities, viola[ions and to prevent non-industrial use and to have uniform terms and conditions of lease, the Government enacted Azarrrabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of (Leases) Act 1S of i992. F.urther it was contended that, under Section 3(1), all leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or 13 ' arrangements whatsoever made hold Possession of otherwise rn respect of all demised Plots in the Azamabad stand terminated on the appointed date i'e Industrial Area, ll.O7 .1992 ar'd consequentlY, all sub-leases or any ot ner by the Person/entity in the demlsed Plot stand occuPation to 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(1), 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 Further, it was contended that Government under the Lzamabad Industrial Area also issued rules (Termination & Regutation of Leases) Act' 1992' r''ide G'O' Ms' No. 155 dated 06'O4'1992 and the Commissioner of industries was aPPointed as Competent Authority uid'e G'O Ms' No' 154 (IF-Ce11) Department dated 06 04 1993' The Inds. & Com Government also issued rules under the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination & Regulation of Leases) Act' 1992' uide G'O' Ms No' 155 dated ()6j,4j992 and the Commissioner of Industries was appointed as Competent Authority under the Act uideG.O Ms. No' 154 dated 06'O4' 1993' manner Prescribed' 14 Learned Special Government pleader submits that aggrieved by the same, several industrial units of Azamabad filed Writ petitions to declare Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Reguration of Leases) Act No. 15 of 1992 as unconstitutional, violative of Articles I4, 19(i) (g) 30O_A of the Constitution of India. The Hon,ble Division Bench urde judgment dated 10.08.1994 held that it was within the competence of the Legislatut: to make law with retrospective effect or incorporate a deeming provision and all the Writ petitions r,r.ere dismissed Aggrieved by the said judgment, batch of Speciar leave pctitions rvere filed and the Supreme Court on the assurance given by the State Government that Act No. 75 of 1992 would suitably be amended, disposed of the Special reave petitions as infructuous and directed that no action against the inclustries operating in the industrial area concerned should be taken under the Act, 7992. It was also noted by the Court that a submrssion by the Counsel representing ttre State was made that the proposal of amendment of the Act had already been placed before the Cabinet and that no action regarding cancellation of leases etc, against that industries concerned shall be taken under the rmpugned Act. 15 Further, it was contended that in view of the above the PrinciPal Act as orders, the State Government amended and Regulation of Azamarrad Industrial Area (Termination Leases) Amendment Act No' 1 of 2000 which came into force with effect from 17 'O2 2OOO incorporating a provision for grant of freehold rights to the unit holders in the Azamabad Industrial Area. Accordingly, Section (3) of the Azarr;abad Industrial Area' (Termination d Regulation of leases) Act No t 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 transferring 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 l6 above, Press Notihcation d.ated, 17 .02.2004 was issued and Applications were received from several persons seeking freehold rights of rhe government land in the Estate. After consideration, 24 applicants were erroneously found to be eligible for freehold rights. Upon exercise of review by the Government under Secdon lO of the Act, 15 of such applicants were lbund to be ineligible ibr freehold rights. Further, inquiry conducted by the vigilance department a nd the report dated 1Z .OS.2O2O thereof rcveals th.rt the provisional allotment letters which u,ere issued are in conrravention of the provisions of the Azambad Act. The report further recommended ceaslng all the provisional allotment Letters for free hold rights which were grante<i. Following such inquiry, disciplinary action was recommended bv the Director of vigilance and enforcement against the then officers responsible for such erroneous issuance ol allotment letters. In any case, aliotment letters were only provisional in nature and since no amounts were received from the applicants nor sale deeds registered in their names, no vested rights in the property accrues to applicants. Therefore, no liesh lease nor freehold rights were granted to any of the unit horders and arl the leases in the Azamabad industrial Area stood terminated by 17 virtue of Section 3(1)(a) of the Azamabad Industriai Area (Termination and Regulation of leases) Amendment Act 20OO' Further it was specifically contended that thereafter, Joint lnspection 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 uideletter dated O1 04 '2022 ' The report dated O1.O4.2O22 revealed that despite termination of leases of the unit holders in accordance with the Azamabad Industrial area Amendment Act, 2000, there are Currently 58 units in the estate, most of them in possession of sub-tenants/ occupants and not the original allottees Further several requests were received from the unit holders secking 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 ui-d-e Memo dated 29'08 2022 decided to issue freehold rights in respect of the Government land in Azamabad Industrial Estate by fixing the rates for these two categories of units as original allottees: 100% of registration value and others: 2ooy" of registration value and MD, TSIIC(4t}' 18 procedure, following proper respondent) \4,as nominated as competent authoritlr/ nodal agency. It was also contended that on further examination of the issue and following the observations made by the Hon,ble High Court in order dated 23.06.2023 in Writ Appeal No.634 of 2023, that a policy, guidelines and rules regarding regularization of property concerned may be framed after with appropriate sanctions and approvals uide Government Order, clearly delineating the appropnat!- reasons and objects behind the said poticy decision of the Go.,,ernment ancl the class of persons entitled to be regularized shall be specifically mentioned without any scope for ambiguiq,, Memo dated 29.Oa.2022 was withdrawn and G.O.Ms.No. i9 dated 29.Og.2O23 was issued by the Government. It wss f1111fu6r contended that, in the present case, original allottee of prots No.3, 3/ 1 ro 3/7 is M/s shivdutt Rai Gulab Rai. Petitioner has to establish before Respondent No.4 that he tvould not fall under category B of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2023. Since, according to Respondent No.4, petitioner falls under category B. reasons are (i) there is no industriai unit as required under G.O.Ms.No.19 d,ated 29.08.2023, (ii) plot is not vacant u.ith proof of industrial activity to have taken place 19 previously in the allotted plot' (iii) though petitioner has come into Possesslon through the original allottee' there rs It u'as vehementlY permlssron accorded bY the Government contended that in the allotted plot' presently some third partles arerunningcommercialactivitieswhohappentohesub-lessees of petitioner. Originally' Plots 3' 3/ 1 to 317 ' tn Lzamabad Industrial Area had been given on lease to M/ s Shivdat Rai GulabRaiforggyearsforsettingupofspinningandWeaving Milis in the year 1952' Thereafter' Inspection Report datecl O3.O2.lg7g,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 lg77 ' ltwas 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 affectedamongthelegalheirsandthreeapplicationsweremade tot'lreGovernmentseekingrecognitionofsucharrangementand for execution of lease deeds to that effect' The request of the 317 was forwarded to occupants of Plot 03-04-1979 with a No.3,3ll to ktter dated Government uide 20 a recommendation to allow one year time for establishing their respective prants. in the meanwh e, due to lrnauthorised sub_ let ting constructions/alterations. show cause nolice was issued on O4.O7.1929 and they have replied on Og.O7.Ig7g. Finally, they were clirected not to take up any additional unauthorized constructron / alterations ttll decision is taken by the Government on their representations for establishing their respective units uide Letter dated 29.Og.lg|g. Further based on the representations made by all the partners, a meeting lr.as conducted bv Additional DI, RDO and DDTC and decided thc entire pror No.3, 3/1 to 3/7 to be divided to aI the partners and the Government was addressed uid.e Lr.No. 14gTO/t AA/23, ciated 12.07.19g4 recommending the extent of acres to be allotted ancl lease deeds to be executecl separately i.e. 1) Gulab Rai - 3O76.5O Sq.yards, 2) prahlad Rai _ 6527.5O Sq.yards, 3) Sunder Mal 7092.50 Sq.Yards and 4) Bilas Rai Z431.SO 24128.OO Sq.yards. However, the Government sought certain clarihcation on the above proposais The Director of Industries furnished their reports on 19- i 1-1985, o2_O7_7986, 05_08_1986 The Government again requested for some more information on 06-Og_i9g6. After Sq.Yards i:r all total 2l uide DO Letter protracted correspondence' the Government of Industries to dated 2O-O7- 1989 requested the Director conduct physical verihcation of plots and furnish modiired draft show cause notices as per the opmlon of the Government Pieader. The Supervisor' AIA' Hyderabad on 28-07-1949 inspected the area in PIot Nos 3' 3ll to 317 and reported the extenl of areas under the possession of each Partner along with the particulars of sub-lessees' According to the sketch' the total extent of area otall plots is coming to 2338O sq yards' However' the Government to the Partltlon was given bY no apProval the legal heirs of the original allottee among affected bY 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. Further 1t was also contended that the Joint Inspection report dated Ol 'O4 '2022 ' reveals that Plot Nos 3 ' 3 / 1 are presently in occupation of several legal heirs of allottee. The Inspection report also reveals that no Lo 317 original industrialunitiSbeingoperatedbythelegalheirsinthesaid plot. However, the plot is also not vacant' Instead' the legal heirs in occupation of the subject plot have illegally iet out 22 portions oI the plot to ser.eral business concerns such as M/s Sai Balaji packaging, M/s R R Offset printers, M/s Deepti Printers, M/s Big Appre on rent, to run their respective commercial businesses. Category A, covers those plots, where an industrial unit is present either in working condition or non_ working condition (dormant) {Category A (1Xr)) or where there is no Industrial unit at all and the plot is vacant, but Industrial activitv h:rd taken place previously in the said plot {Category A(1)tii)) or u,here the unit. holders came into possession of the plot after obtaining permission of the Government. tsut, it clbes not include those plots which do not fall within either of these conditions. In the present matter, the subject plot neither has an operational/ dormant industrial unit nor is the plot vacant. Instead, portions of plot have been let out to business entities and thereb-r. personal commercial gains/rent are being made out of the Government land illegally. Further, the internal arrangemen t/ partition made by the petitioner has not been approved b1- the Government. Therefore, the subject plot does not fall under Category A of clause 17 of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.O8.2O23. Lastly, it v,as contended that Section 3(3) of Azamabad Industrial Area (Terrnination and regulation of leases) 23 Act, 200O provided that lessees whose lease did not stand terminatedontheappointeddateasperSection3(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 mentionedinSection3(1)(b),whichincludes(i)misusingofiand for a purpose other than the purpose for which land was allotted includrng non-user; or (ii) sub- letting or transferring the plots or portions of piots by entering into disguised partnerships and other unauthorised transfer o[ interest in the plot; or (iii) violation of any terms' conditions or covenant specihed in the Lease Deed' It is submitted that' even as early asl,g1g,theallotteesofthesubjectplotresortedtoillegalsub- letting against u'hich show cause notice dated 04 'O7 '1979 was issued againsL them Further' the partition/ internal division of the plot by the legal heirs of the whole plot aliotted to original allottee is not recognised or approved by the Government' Therefore, Petitioner cannot take recourse of Section 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, Petrtroner had taken out I.A.No 2 of 5 2024 seeking amendment of the prayer' In the said Application' 24 it is contended that this Court by order dated 23.02.2024 directed the Respondent Authorities to consider the application of Petitioner as falling under Clause 17 (1) Category ,A, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 19 dated 29.Og.2O23 and receive 100% of the market v:rlue to convert the land belonging to petitioner from lease holcl to free hold. The 4ur Responder_rt ulde proceedings dated 20.O3.2024 passed orders disposing petitioner,s application holding that it is found to be not eligible under Category A of G.O.Ms.No. l9 dated 29.Og.2023. Contending that impugned proceedings dated 20.o3.2024 passed without any application of mind and the same is conrrary to record the amendment petition is filed by petitioner seeking amendment of the prayer in the main u,rit petition which was allowed bv this 6 additional counter It was contended by Respondents 1 and 2 in the that admitteclly, petitioner entered into unauthorized partnership and had leL out the subject plot to third parties without the approval of the Government. while originally, the plot was leased to the original allottee for the purpose of establishing Spinning and weaving mil1s, according to the joint inspection report of 2022, fne third parties currently in occupation are utilising the valuable Go'ernment rand as 25 impugned order godov/ns and for other commercial business not amounting to Industrial purposes' This is a direct and irrefutable violation of Section 3(1) (b) of the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination leases) Amendment Act' 2O0O' That' the and regulation of dated 2O.3.2O24 has been Passed in G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29'O82023' It was accordance with contended that, no Industrial unit is present in the subject plots 2022 arlid instead, the as per the Joint InsPection report' godowns and to run subject plots are being utilised as the imPugned Proceedings commercial businesses Therefore' d.ated' 2O.3.2O24 righlly heid that the Petitioner is not eligible under Category 'A' of G O'Ms'No' 19 dated 29 08 '2023 ' lt was alsocontendedthatonverifyingtherecordandtheapplication ltledbeforetheTSilC/RespondentNo.4,itisfoundthat petitioner never fi1ed any document referring to partnership with the third parties' More particularly' Petitioner has nQt filed the partnership deeds that are now being ltled along with I'A No'2 of 2024 in W'P No'4719 of 2024' Therefore' friing new documents by the Petitioner after rejection order dated 20.3.2024 passed by Respondent No'4 is totally untenable and 26 can be treated as invented for the purpose of relief claimed in the present Writ petition It was contended that by virtue of the 2O0O Act, upon conducting due enquiry, it is clear that if a person is falling in any of the conditions stipulated in Section 3(1)(b), his lease is liable to be cancelled automatically. The Inspection report da ted Ol .O4.2O22 which is part of the enquiry by respondents clearly demonstrates the fact that lease of the original allottee/iegar heir stands terminated automatically in terms of the Section 3(1)(a) r/n Sectron 3(i)(b) as the report clearly divulges the fact that some third parties are conducting business ',r'hich is not in tune/ line with the definition of the Section 2(b) and 2(d) of the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination ald Regulation of leases)Ac t, 7gg2. 7. Sri L. prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4& respondent contends drat Governmen[ made amendments to Azmabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Amendment Act, 1 of 2OOO by making necessary amendment to Section 3, giving option of freehold rights. Pursuant to the said amendments, G.Os were issued from time to time including GoMs No. 19 dated 29-08_2023 in 27 supersession of earlier orders Under the said G'O the Government nominated the 4tr' 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 29-08 2023 two categorles department, the 2022 submitted weremad.e.Undercategory(AXt)theunitsinpossessionofall the original allottees including their legal heirs whether working (ii) whereas as per joint inspectton report of or not working; by the officials of revenue & industries plot is vacant and is in possession of the and industrial activity has taken place original allottee previously in the allotted plot (iii)The unit holders who came into possession of the unit through the original aliottee after obtaining permission of the Government shall also be treated as eligible under this "A" category' The registration value of 10O% 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 and industries department would 28 come. That the registration value of 2OOok is in accordance of guidelines of registration department as on the date of registration are liable to be charged. The Petitioner claim as legal heir of original allottee ancl comes under category ,,A,, of the above GOMs No. 19 dated 29.Og.2O23 is totallv vague, incorrect and specihcally denied. Therefore the claim that the petitioner is willing to pav looyo of the market value is tota.lly untenable and unsustainable. As a matter of fact, letter dated 14_06-2010 made by petitioner was duly considered by the 4tr, Respondent, in terms of the orders of this Court d.ated 23.02.2024 and claim of petitioncr to treat him under category A,of the said G.O was rejected by passing a reasoned order in letter dated 2O.O3.2024. The petitioner plot neither an operational/dormant industrial unit nor is vacant, on the other hand, portions of the plot was let out by petitioner to the other business entities other than industrial purpose namery - for commerciar purpose u,ithout obtaining any permission from the Governmen t. Thus the petitioner unit does not come under Clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of category A'of the said G.O.Ms. No. 19, d,ated 29.O8.2O23. 29

8. concluding judgments. i. ii. Learned. Special Government Pleader' while his submissions, had reiied on the following The State of Raiasthan u' Sharwdn Kumdr Kumanaatl. coromandel Mining AND Exports-:*'.L:!, " ir;;;;;;;;i; N'P-' No:1 03 6 4 ;f 20 1 s & batctt)' Petitioner hled reply to the counter of Respondents g. I and2. Learned counsel for petitioner based on the said reply submits that G O'Ms' No ig' dated 29 'O8'2O23 was issued with avowed object of conversion of leasehold lands in Lzamabad Industrial Area into freehold lands subject to the criteria set out in the said GO To begin with' the State Government constituted comPrising Ofhcials of the a Joint InsPectton Committee with those of the Revenue Industries DePartment along 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 LLre said GO' Joint Inspection Report was submitted on 01 '04'2 O22 to the effect that majority of the units have violated the terms of the lease and were found as not fulhlling the objectives of the ' 2c23 Lire Law (SC) 586 30 allotments and that the Industrial units r,vere found to be run by sub tenants/occupiers. It is further stated that the State Government request from such occupants for grant of free hold rights over the lands In those circumstances, tt appears that the Government constituted a Cabinet Sub_Committee for resource mobilization. The said Committee in its meeting held on 25.06.2022 decided to extend freehold rights to all units in the estate. Thereafter, as set out in the GO, revieu. meeting were conducted on O5.O7.2022 and 16.07.2022 try the Chief Secretary on thc course of action to be :rdopted for extending free hold rights to the o66up2n1s of land to [hree Inclustrial Estates which include the Azamabad Industrial Estate. From the above, rt is clear that notwithstanding the fact that the Joint Inspec tion Report disclosed that majority of the units violated of the lease and were found not be fulfilling the objectives oI the aliotment and that most of the industry units were found to be run by sub- tenant/occupiers, rhe State Government decided to extend grant of freehold rights over the said lands. it is therefore, clear that violation of the condition of lease or failing to fulhl the objectives of the allotment by the lease holders $,as not treated as a material fact for the purpose the terms 3l of conversion of lease hold to free hold' In that view of the matter, various averments in the Additional Counter Afhdavit and reference to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act' 2OO0 are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the present writ petition lt 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 ol 2023 set out the policy guidelines andrulesregardingregularizationoftheproperty.Thereupon, Government categorized the lndustriai Estate into Category 'A' Category 'A' Sub Category (i) relates to units 1n and 'B 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 place PreviouslY in the where industrial activity had taken to unit holders who came allotted plot. Sub Category (ii) relates into possession of the Unit through the original allottees' after obtaining permission of the Govt' Category B comprises all other unitsexcludingthoseSetoutinCategory'A'andinpossession of the respective unit holders as per the joint inspection report of 2022. Thus, the requirement delineated in Category A (i) are i2 that the original allottees or their iegal representative should be ln possession of the unit rvhether or not there is aly manufacturing activity in the said Unit The Petitioners 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 datecl 1.4.2022 relates to the subject lands. Under the colqlnn which relates to name of the Company/Allottee along with the address (Name of the Original Atlottee) the name of Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai MC Mills is mentioned. The said Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai is the grandfather of the pedtioner. Under column relating to details of the present occupier it was mentioned as regar heirs of shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rai MC Mills, the original allottee. Under the column relating if leased/lessor name, it is mentioned as legal heirs of Shiva Dut Rai are using oflice and let out to Sai Balaji packing, RR Offset printers and Deepthi printers. Therefore, what has been set out in the Joint Inspection Report is that the originai allottee was the grandfather of the petitioner and the Petitioner is in occupation in their capacit5z of legal heirs of the original allottee and some parts have been allegedly leased in 33 favour of Sai Balaji Packing' RR Offset Printers and DeePthi printers. It was further contended that impugned order dated 20.o3.2024 is without any application of mind as the 4d' 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 original allottee and being in possessLon' his Application directly falis under Clause 17 (1) Category 'A' of 29 .O8.2023 and therefore' the 4t]' G.O.Ms.No.19 dated considered the case of Petitioner under respondent ought have relevant rule without any self- imposed restric[ions 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 justihabie reasons.ThecontentionofRespondentsthatPetitionerviolated Section 3(1)(b) of 2OO0 Act is without any merit for the same was not preceded by any enquiry as contemplated under Section 3(1)(a). Petitioner was undertaking industriai activity as on the appointed date of coming into force the Amendment Act' 20O0 and once no action has been taken r'rnder 3(1)(a) read with 3(1)(b) of 20OO Act for termination of leases' Petitioner is eligibie 34 for grant of free hold nights uncler Section S (3). petitioner had been making Applications and representations since 2OO4 under every new s6hgrng / policy/ Go of the Stare Government introduced for grant of free hold rights, right from 2OO4 to the latest being in 2024 and had also attended personal hearing but never a final decision was taken by Respondents granting free hold rights to any of the lessees and the requests were put off on one prctext or the other. Therefore, after this length of time and after accruar of rights in favour of petitioner under Section 3 (3), ir is not open for Responcrents to arege that petitioner violated Section 3(1)(b) of rhe 2OOO Acr. Ir was vehementiy contended that the issue for consideration of this Court in the present /zs is u,hether petitioner violated Section 3 (1)(b) of 2OOO Act or r.T'hether lease of petitioner is to be terminatecr or determined but the issue for consideration is whether petitioner as a legai heir of the original allottee is in possession or not to fa,ll under Category ,A, of G.O.Ms. No. 19 dated 29 O8.2O23. Trre Joint Inspection report as well as the impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O24 of the 4ff Respondent and also in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, they have categorically stated that several legal heirs of the Original allottee are in 35 possesslon 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 'O8'2023 ' lt was further contended that according to G'O Ms' No' 19 dated 2g.oa.2o23,onceitisnotdisputedthatPetitioneristhelegal heir of the original ailottee' his Application directly falls under Clause 17 (1) Category'A'and the same cannot be denied on the solegroundthatnoindustrialactivityisgoingon.TheState Governmentasearlyasin2o04byapressnotifiCationmadea conscious decision to shift industrial activity 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 Azarl;rabad 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' gradually industrial activit5r had come to a standstiii at Azamabad Industrial Area' TheStateGovernment,ontheonehand,tookadecisiontoshift industrial activity out of Azamabad and on the other' denied benefits to Peti.tioner on the ground that no industrial activity is taking place in the subject land' The Joint Inspection Report' in Jt) 1S categoricaily unequivocal terms under the heading present occupier, states that legal heirs of original allotee Shiva Dut Rai Gulab Rar are in possession and occupation. The impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O24 while erroneously rejecting the Application also states that several legal heirs of onginal allottee are in possession of the subject land and further. in the earlier counter liled by this Respondent also, it mentioned that legal heirs are in possession of lands Section 3 (l)(a) of the 200O Act clearly states, an enquirv needs to be conducted before taking any action under Section 3 (1)(b) of the 2O00 Act. Further, the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act, 2OO0 clearly states that automattc termination under the Act, 7gg2 w.as chalenged before this court and later was 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 follou, due procedure of show cause notice for termination of existing leases_ Therefore, the statement t.hat lease has been automatically terminated is misconceived and without any merit 10. This Court has given an:rious attention to the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the entire record. 37 In order to resolve the present lis' it is apposite to have a look at the relevant provisions of law and G'O dealing with the said issue. The relevant portion of G'O Ms'No' 19' dated 29 Oa '2023 is extracted hereunder: 17 ' ln such circumstances the matter was examined in detail and after careful considera.'ioi' oi lft" matter governm€nl has decided lo issue lreehold rights ro t"t t;J;;;;;up"ot"ii"o"-"tti"rists in Azamabad Industrial Area nctora"'gti' GovTrnment in supersession o[ the orders i""" the fotlowing orders in issued in reference 4th lo 9u industrialists in Azamabad order to regulari"" tttt it'au"tliJ"p;t: ;;;t.'i"/ Industrial Area;. The units in the Azaamabad Industrial^-Estate shall be categorised into the following trvo categorles: "#;#;";;;tuy ' CATECORY A - (i) (ii) Wnttt' rhe units in ro9s1ssi11 :i^'l]."t-l: -"" p"t the joint ]""ft-:l:t orisinal allottees it'<:fttJittg tleir legat heirs whether working or not working. report of 2022 itt" Lfrrcials of ret'enue and industries atp*t*trri' tf-t" plot is vacant'and is in position of "'ut'iiitiiy ' ttta industriat activity has tnt'-oti*"i"i "rrJtttt t"kt;;A'; previouslv in the allotted plot' who came into possession of the unit - after obtaining o'igi""t 'ttoitee "'ii^rioia"ts ;' t#;;;* pt:'ili?"iot' of the government sha1l also be treated as eligible under this category' (iii) t" CATEGORY B - (0 rL G""";;""';i: ;;;i;;; tn" t":"":;i;;;;;' 'Lt,,"t''" All other units excluding gale'gory A' in possession of 't""ptttf"t ut'ii holdits as per the- joint t-or iozz submitted bv the ofncials a;d industries department ;r tLe'ract that the originar ,r."ji'""*"tt tl.,"'ilt;t to respond to Government's call trrt State and for that cause ot itta'o'"titri"tit" "r t""'"i;-"ti;1;'li''' -o""v and efforts to create state leading to trnprolit""i"'iot the people of 'the the rate for these unit dt"ti;'o;;": oi-ttti^ "tit"''roed oi regi"itation value and for others at t'trat"!'"i ;;;;;;;;tio" uh"t' even thoush the same is far bel"* 1't" ?ttt"iring market value' in recognition of '?oo'l' 'ioo'2" 38 IIL "" iotturu", their efforts. According\., the Government has rr_xed the rates of these trvo categories Category A: IOO1" of the registration value as on date (i.e. date of. registration) -i" -l..o.aro." with the guidelines of the Registratio, O.f.it*"rt. Categoq- B: 2OO.t. _of the registration value as on date (t . 11!. of. registration) "t.,-- li.o.au.r". with the guidelines of thc Registratio. O.jriirn.,lt. In view of the fact that the Azamabad Industrial area is now in the. heart of the .ify "u..ounaeA by residcntial area and in.order to encourage tt"". iarOr"t,." to change-their line of actiyitJ. a .-.rrrr-,r-".r,ally friendlv activities permifted in the lrea .. a ai""."if, i,r,..Iifi._r. activiti " :+ &i,i:' :'f"#" iiiiJTl; ;H,:.ll "tnt n"." anv ofher categoa. rlu_11- collectino_ tfre reouired lee as per GHMC rates_ Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination ancl Regulation of Leases) Amendment Act No.1 of 2O0O came into force with effect from 1T.O2.2OOO. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder: 1 1 . . (ll(a) Tercrination of Leases: Section 3 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of propert_', Act, 1gg2, or any other lau, for the time being in force, and the terms and conditions of any lease entered into or other arrangeme[t mad( demised prot either o" ,n. ;";;1.T;f:T"::,;."::'i. L il: erstwhlle Government of Hyderabad or by the Govemment oI Andhra Pradesh prior to the appointed date, all those reases, sub leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deerl or otherwise in respect of all demised plots in Azamabad Industnal Area which after due enquiry attract one or more of the ground for cancellation of lease as specified in clause (b) shall stand terminated 39 on the appoi[ted date artd there upon all such leases' sutr-leases or any other arrangement whatsoever made by the person in occupation ofthedemisedplotshallstandannulledandeverysuchdemisedplot shalt vest in the Government free from all encumbralces' Section 3 (l)(b) - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law 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: - (ii) (i)'i:l::ls;: fil*Jff.'['JJ""il,::f 'll?X.ll; purpos( non-user; or Sub- lellinq or transferring lhe plols or portions into disguised p"arlnerships of ptot" tttd otnJl t]"""t#ti"ta transfer of interest in the PloU or (iii) Viotation of any ter:ns' conditions or covenant 'oy-tlt"'ing sPecified in the lease deed Explanation: For the purpose of-this Act ' where t"""tJtrrit'" into a partnership' agreement or toi carrying on any activity " --cl" the demised plot' then otnet "ttattge*ent *n"o"tttt the Indian t'ot*'tt'"tlat'atng' anything in ntt] 1932 it sh;u also be deemed to '^t""t"r']p b" ti;i;;i;; of the conditions of the lease " ' " It is also imperative for this Court to look into the t2. object/ intentton of the kgislature to enact the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and regulation of leases) Act' for the purpose of adjudicating the present lis' The relevant portions are extracted hereunder' 7992 Object and reasons of the Azamabad Industrial Termination and Regulation of leases) Act' 1992' Area 10 ll. lll. Whereas an Industrial area Known as Industrial Area, Azamabad Hyderabad had been selected and established by the erstwhile Nizam,s Gov estabrish ing indu stries .":'",T.'":J"1" j:: j:l "'.::":":' developed into different sizes of plots rvith infrastructure facilities for leasing them out to persons intending to set up Industries: And whereas the developed plots in the Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad, w,ere leased out to various persons under var5ring terms and conditions including payment of rents by adopting different forms ol lease deeds: furd wliereas it ilas cor-rie t(, th. riotice of thc Gove.nirlent that contain lessees or occupants are putting the plots of portions of plots to unauthorised uses and certain other lessecs or occupants are misusing valuable industrial urban land lor residential purposes as also for u,arehousing activitv And whereas, it has also come to the notice of the Gou"..r_.at that some lessees are sub_le ;: X' portion s o r pro ts by transfer of shares of companies to secure lease ho]d transfer s; ",,..,. *',t"ij J,l#". j': j:,: j5

13. Likewise, it is also essential to definitions in the Azamabad Industrial Area Regulation of leases) Act, 7992; mentlon about few (Termination and Section 2(b); "Azamabad Industrial Area,, meals the land owned by Government and situated at Mushirabad within the limits of Hyderabad municipal Corporation, drvided into plots 4l ii. iii. -':it{ *'"#:' i ; l1'9l "::,,"., ":: of d ifferent sizes for industrial purpose by the erstwhile Nizam's Government and known as Azamabad Industrial Area; Section 2(d) - "Demised plot" means any plot of land or thereof in the Azamabad lndustrial Area' which has been leased out to any person for Industrial 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 - Termination of leases: Not withstanding ! Js;u1, ::: anvthin g - " transfer of propell'^lt;'J"lt"l'i,.' i*"lt"a the terms and :lI"',,',::'"':I ilr" i';;";;"? i" " J o ther arran gement demised plot either by made with u', oJt"t;;; re"p"tt "r ""v iJltt.,..,t"t-^ot bv the erstwhile the erstwhile ;;;;' bv the Government of Andhra Government tf ;fi;;;J;r or other Prad'esh pti"' ic,'1-n"-"Jppoitttta att"' all arrangements -"at'tt tTt"t"O it'to tlt:qh i registered deed or otherwise - i:;;t';i;]i a""*9a.41i.in the Azamabad terminated on tlae appointed date Industria-l nt"^' "t'ifi "tt'-'d andthereupon;ii'";;i;""t"oranvothe111tut'c"-:l^t: whatever rnaat uiit'" p"tson in occupation to hold possessron annulled and every such of the demised"'il; ffii'";;; demised plc,t "hli1"'";";it'"' " co.."ttlrn"'tt free from all J;li be usea subsequently for industrial encumbrances 'ff ili't'"r"'1ilf; termination or the leas'e :l' :th" arransement t"a liabilities as between the under sub sectii;'i;;'i;; "ghi" shall cease and parties to tnt iill"''.lt''c,it'?'' "ti"t'gt.,,""t tt" Government from the i'" determine' b"t ;;;:;"; the lease or other arrangement so aforesaid ptt".,;""';;; terminated "t"ri'uJ On careful reading of the above provisions of the 14. 1992 Act,this Court {inds that in view of Sections 2(b) & 2(d} of Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of 1992, tt rs succinctlY evident that the very leases) Act, object/intent of the Legislature is to aliot plots of different sizes t'J-t*ti ut art arrear of land revenue " thLe Azattabad -leases 'o 12 only for industrial purpose and for no other purpose. By virtue of the 1992 Act coming into force and in terms of Section 3(1), all leases were terminated on the appointed day. However, after lengthy Court litigation, the State Government has brought amendment to the Act, 1992, more particularllr Section 3 in 2OOO which resulted in the Azamabad lndustrial Area (Termination and Regulation of leases) Amendment Act, 20OO. In 2000 Act, amendment was only brought to the preamble, Sections 3, 4, S, 11, 19 & 21, Lhc remaining provisions of the 1992 Act have remained intact and the same are still in force. 15 As per Section 3(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, r.hat is to be noted is notwithstanding anything contained rn the Indian Contract Act, 7gT2, the Transfer of property Act, lgg2, or any other law lor 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 aly demised plot either by the erstwhile Nizam,s Government or by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad or by tl.e Government of Andhra pradesh prior to the appointed date, a]l those leases, sub_leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a regtstered deed or otherwise in respect of arl demised prots in Aza,,.abad Industriar 4) Area which after due enquiry attract one or more of the ground forcancellationofleaseasspecifredinclause(b)shallstand terminated 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 and every such demised plot shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances' From the perusal of the record' the undisputed fact 16. is that originally, Plot Nos' 3' 3II Lo 317' in Azamabad Industrial Area had been given on Iease to M/s Shivdat Rai GulabRaiforggyearsforsettingupofSpinningandWeaving Mills in the year 1952' Thereafter' Inspection Report dated O3.O2.lg7g,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 ' Itwas 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' partition was effected among the legal heirs and three applications were made totheGovernmentseekingrecognitionofsucharrangementand 44 for execution of lease deeds to that effect The request of the occupants of Plot No.3, 3/1 to 3/7 was forwardecl to Government vide Lr. No.224/rAA/66. dated 03-04_1979 with a recommendation to allow one year time for establishing their respective plants. In the meanwhile, due to unauthorised subletting cons tructions/ alterations, a show cause notice was issued on 04.07.1979 and they have replied on 09.02.1979. Finatly, they rvere directed not to take up any additional unauthorized cons truction/ alterations till a decision is taken by thc Government on their representations for establishing thcir respective units vide Letter dated 29_Og.1g7g. Further bascd on the representations made by all the partners, a meeting was conducted by Additional DI, RDO and DDTC and decided the entire plot No.3, 3/ r to 3/z to be divided to ar the partners and the Government was addressed vide Lr.No. l4gTO/1 AA/73, dated 72.07 .19g4 recommending the extent of acres to be allotted and lease deeds to be executed separately r.e., 1) Gulab Rao - 3076.50 Sq.yards, 2) prahlad Rai _ 6527.50 Sq.yards, 3) Sunder Mal - 7092.50 Sq.yards and 4) Bilas Rai Z431.SO Sq.Yards in all total 24t2g.OO Sq.yards. However, the Government sought certain clarihcation on the above proposals. 45 The Director of Industries furnished their reports on 19-1i-1985, O2-O7 -i[,a6, 05-08-1986' The Government again After requested for some more information on 06-08- 1986 protracted correspondence, the Government urde DO Lr'No' 1383/IF CelIlTg-36, d'ated 20-07-1989 have requested the Directoroflndustriestoconductphysicalveri|rcationofthe plots and furnish modifred draft show cause notices as per the opinion of the Government Pleader' The Supervisor' AIA' Hyderabad on 28-07 -1989 inspected the area in Plot Nos 3' 3/ 1 to 317 aodreported the extent of areas under the possession of each Partner along witl-r the particulars of sub-lessees' According to the sketch, the total extent of area of all plots is coming to 2338o sq yards' However no approval was given by theGovernmenttothepartitionaffectedbythelegalheirsof original allottee among themselves' At this juncture' to curb misuse of the Government lands at Azarrrabad Industrial Area' TheAzamabadlndustrialArea(TerminationandRegulationof Irases) Act, 1992 carne to be enacted The Joint Inspection presently in the reportdatedO1.O42O22revealsthatPlotNos'3'3/lto3l7is occupation of the several legal heirs of the The Inspection report also reveals that no original allottee. +() industrial unit is being operated by the 1egal heirs in the said plot. Hou.ever, the plot is also not vacant. Instead, the legal heirs in occupation of the subject plot have iitegally 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 their respective commercial businesses. Therefore, this court finds that in vieu, of enquiry by wa1, of Joint Inspection report dated 01.O4.2022 and also in vieu. of legal heirs in occupation of the subject plot have letting out portions of the plot to several business 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 commerciai businesses squarely attracts Section 3(1)(b) of the 20OO Act, resultantly, the lease of subject plot is deemed to be terminated in terms of Section 3(1) (a) and all the arrangements rvhatsoever made by the person in occupation oI the demised plot shall stand annulled and every such demised plot shall vest in the Government free from a,ll encumbrances. 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, 13.g.2023. As such, 47 The above finding is also fortified by the detailed 17 . order of this Court dated' 23'6'2023 in I A'No'1 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.634 of 2023 which has also taken similar view in regard to very same issue' Whiie that being so' this Court also finds considerable force in the contentions of the petitioner that isthepetitionerhasbeenmakingapplicationsand representations since 2004 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 and had also attended personal hearing but never a hnal decision was taken by the Respondents granting free hold rights to any of the lesseesandtherequestswereputoffononepretextorthe other. Therefore, after this length of time and after accruai of rights in favour of Petitioner under Section 3 (3), it is not open for the Respondents to allege that the Petitioner had vioiated the Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 2O00' As rightly contended by learned SeniorCounselsriSitaramMurthy,theissueforconsideration ofthisCourtinthepresentlisisnotwhetherpetitionershave violated Section 3 (1Xb) of 2OOO Act or whether the iease 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 a re in possession or not to fall under Category ,A, of G.O.Ms. No. 19, dared 29 08.2023. 18. This Court already opined that petitioner cannot lall under Caregory A,of G.O.Ms.No. 19 dated 29.0g.2023 more particularly in vien, of the enquiry and as well as the Joint Inspection report dated 1.4.2022. Therefore, the 4fr respondent has rightly passed the order dated 2O.03.2024 stating that petitioner is not eligible under Category A, of Clause 17 of G.O.Ms.Nc,. i9 dated 29.8.2023. 19. Nori. it is germane to refer to the contents in G'o Ms.No 19 dated 2g.g.2o23, releva,t clauses are extracted hereunder:

12. ..J"i"i The ._ Government vide " Memo No' 2.90 r /prr. sec-v/ Indus/ p-esh/ 2ozo 29.r.;o2o ordered to conduct Joint lnspection of Azamabad i"a""tA-rf il""t"te by officials of the Lrdustries Department along with tf,. tm"i"f" of Revelue Department to ascertain the status of "tifir"iirl-"iit . Iands allotted to Industrial units and,to submit a j.i",-f"""p#,-" report to the Goverument. Accordingly, the General-Ma.rug"Ji'Oi",.i", Industries Centre, Hyderabad has submitted u"i"i -?n"pi,.n report on 1.4.2022. As per Joint inspection ..po.t, ir*u"'!Li ttat malorlty of the units have violated tt. i..m" oriJase'."i'i.re ij""o not fuUilling the ob.iectives of the altotment. Further, ;;", ;i;; Industrial units were found to be run by su b-_tenants/ a.""pi.." 'rrra requests were received from such oersons for g.ali "i il""i_,'"fl".igLts over this Govern ment land 13. In vieu, of the above, the Cabinet sub-committee for resource mobilization, in its EeetiEg helrt oi ii.ai6ii*t" decided to extend freehold rights -to .U tn" ,.rrits'irr t-hT pstate. Review meerings were conducted on. s.z .2o2i "ra-io.i.iizz by the chief Secrerary, on the court of action t" b;;J"pt.;1r1ir..,oirg freehold 49 ri(,hts to the occupants of land in three industrial estates' which i"?i"a.t ,t . Azamabad lndustrial estale'

14.Sunsequentlv"tq'I-"1"1^"';""'X,iiXt$|i}i1#i""?;:'x?.;t"i:; ii5',i,1:i';':;,i',*f i1,';'7i;*;,iJ"'u.,a-Fo.tt"i;.1",10:::*ratesor freehold rights in respect of the the consideration value for g;;;; Governmenl land at Azamaf,'J--?t'a '"tti"l ,J^J"tout, the Government had reclassihed catesory - #;:;;;; -Furlher' Area- '

15.rhereaseof .theGov,ernrnerltiTf"#.f":f Hilttf :"[:Lf""f; Azao,abad l'," 9:.'" 5,'1i::;i'^il*"r"i;.r rfases) Act, 1ee2 Industrial Area (Term-tnatton of the land "-"J"i.i-uv "., one of the year 20oo' and the possessron -- ff'e existing units were not evicted is vested with Gover-nme"t tttt Units working in"the Azamabad Industriat ;;'"0;.;';;.^""t emplovment to sood number or people' ffi;;;;;.;ing 16. On further examination of the issue and follorving the "iiottl't" High Court..in orrter dated observations made by tn" u".oi+ or 2c,2-3, that a f,olicv' cYld:tlTi' and rules ;::;l;6;;'i; w '.""sff ;*" ;;;;irJtio', ot p,.op'itv concerned T,1l-?"^9:-'o't"' tollowing proper Procedure' witir aipropriate sanclions and approvals ;;;;';4".;;;ii-en t order, clearlv dilineatins the appropriate reasons and obiects behind the taja loii<:v at"i"iori of the Covernment and tntitreo'to de regularized shatl be specilicallv l;J .;'J;;.son" i* ambiiuity. tt r,vas decided that the mentioned without any ilH;il. s;ilin a rxrl ei iz6is' it"zs'8'zozz a.-. withdrawn and i""';# d; r"i,;;l;g o'a"' iurttrcr it is decided that units in rvhose favour sale cleeds were t*"<;'i"a on payment of fl'Il consideration as take any steps as the -er reference zth read auot'e] i"ta t'Lt [i.t .l.rpi.a by them is completely vested"' -f"-ttttt ".op. " From the bare reading of the above' it is explicit 20. that the Government has decided to issue freehold rights to the existing occupants/Industrialists in Azamabad Industrial Area' From the above enunciation of facts and reasons given' it is clear that petitioner cannot be falling under Category A' of the G.O.Ms.No. 19 d,ated 29 '8 '2023 ' However' since petitioner is 50 still an existing occupant who does not satisfy the conditions mentioned in Category A, has automatically falls under Category B' of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.O8.2O23 which clearly states th.rt all other units excluding Category A, in possession of the respective unit holders as per the Joint Inspectron report of 2022 submitted by the Officials of revenue and Industries Departme:lt. Resultantly, the rate prescribed in Category ,El, shall be applicable to petitioner i.e., 2OO%o of the registration value as o:r the date (i.e. date of registration) in accordance rvith the guidelines of Registration Department. 21. Coming to the decisions relied upon by the jearned Special Government pleader, this Court finds the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the said decisions deals rvith the aspect of legitimate expectation. The decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in , Sh.,ruan I{umd.r Kumawdt, is q,ith regard to person,s right to claim that he should be granted mining lease in any land belonging to the Governmenr and the issue therein was that the right being not legal, apart from being non-existent, it can certainly be not Therefore the said decisions has no relevance to the present case. With respect to the second decision of the enforceable. 51 Division Bench of this Court io Cororrro:ndet Mining and Exports Pat. Ltd' ccse' the learnecl Special Governrrrent Pleader has cmphasised on the issue ol the Policy decision ol the Government' This Court does not dispute with the settled pnnciple of taw with respect to the policy decision of thc Government and limitations of interference by this Court Admittedly, the Government itself has taken decision to issuc lree hold rights however by categorizing thc exisling units upon satislying the conditions mcnLioned in G'O Ms No 19 dated 29 .8.2023 ancl petitioner being the existing occupant u'ho does not iall 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 pelitioner ic'' 2OO% of the registration value as on the date (i c.' clate of registration) in accordance with the guidelines of Registration DepartmenL- This Court hnds that in terms of G'O Ms No 19 22. 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 'B' shall be applicable to petitioner t"e 2OOo/o of the registration value as \ 5Z on the date (i.e., date of registration) in accordance with the guidelir.es of Registration Dcparlment_ 23' Accordingry, this court directs the respondents to convert the subject land of petitioner i.e. 2499 Square yards being Plot Nos.3, 3t1 to 317 in Azamabad lndustrial Estate, Hyderabad from leasehold to freehold in terms of Clause 17 Category ,B, of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.8_2023, however, by collecting 2o0yo of the registration 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 rhcrcforc, disposed of wit]r the a bove dir'.-lion- No custs 25. Consequenrly, Miscellaneous Applicalrons, if any shall s tan cl closed_ SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR Note : That the 23'd para of the order dated 0110st202s in W.p.No.4z17l24 is d"t;;i;; and substituted as per tne Oraers ot-iiJ Hon'ble Court 18.07.2b25 in t.A.No.1/25. This Amended order is substituted which ' has already been dispatchea on Of /OilZS.- -rD SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// \\ \=.r,on oFFrcER The Principal Secretary. rnduslries and commerce o'uprrt*unt, secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. I[i.3"ffi1?:3i3r of lndustries' Government of relangana, chirag Ati Lane, -vrvv vvP( - - - To, 1 2

3. The District Collector, Hyderabad District' Hyderabad 4TheViCeChairmanand-tr,4anagingDirector,IgllgglhFloor'Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh l\4aidan hi;;ij' B';;h;;'b'gh' Hvderabad - 04' 5 One CC to SRI KANDURI KOUSHIK' Advocate' [OPUCI 6. One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPL G P for State of Telangana \ loPUCl

7. Two CD CoPies BSK HIGH COURT DATED:01/05 12025 18t08t2025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.4717 ot 2024 7' '\r .S /-,,. o, -) J o .)1 21 AUE A5 \| i, ji t 4'/ ,a/ .,/ f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q 1f $ \9