M/s. Balaji Administrative Services Private Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Order

The action of the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Assn.-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-1st respondent cancelling the land allotted to the petitioners under G.O.Ms.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 dated 31-10-1994 is under challenge in this writ petition. The direction given by the 1st respondent to the District Collector, Hyderabad-2nd respondent to resume the land allotted to the petitioners is also under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this writ petition by M/s. Balaji Administrative Services Private Limited, M/s.Maharshi Publishers Private Limited and M/s. Creative Industries Private Limited are:- The Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a policy decision to encourage functioning of newspapers concerns and educational institutions, which were finding it difficult to find land within the State at affordable prices. The Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted Ac.43-00 of land to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for the purpose of development of residential plots, which could be sold and proceeds thereof be utilized for formation of Necklace Road around Hussain Sagar Lake. The possession of the aforesaid land was handed over to HUDA on 22-5-1993. Pursuant to its policy for granting land to members of Fourth Estate and educational institutions, the Government resumed Ac.10-00 of land from HUDA. After resumption of the land from HUDA, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1096 Revenue (Asn.III) Department, Dt.31-10-1994 allotting Ac.2-00 of land in Sy.No.403 co- related to T.S.No.2, Block 1D’ Ward 9 and T.S.No.1 Block `F’ to M/s.Balaji Administrative Services Private Limited-Petitioner No.1 for locating administrative block and Printing Press on payment of land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per square yard. Likewise, an extent of Ac.2-00 has been allotted to M/s. Maharshi Publishers Private Limited-2nd respondent to construct buildings and start a newspaper on payment of land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per square yard under G.O.Ms.No.1098 Revenue (Assn.III) Department dated 31-10-1994 and an extent of Ac.2-00 has been allotted to M/s. Creative Industries Private Limited-3rd respondent for establishment of a printing press, under G.O.Ms.No.1099, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 31-10-1994. The petitioners paid the value of the land as fixed by the Government in the above-referred Government Orders. Since the Government failed to handover possession of the lands to the petitioners, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.3384, 3376 and 4637 of 1996 seeking direction to the 1st respondent to deliver possession of the lands. The writ petitions came to be allowed on 01-4-1998. The respondents filed Writ Appeal Nos.1715, 1716 and 1720 of 1998 assailing the orders passed in W.P.Nos.3384, 3376 and 4637 of

1996. Pending appeals, the Government issued proceedings cancelling the allotment. The petitioners filed contempt case assailing the action of the respondent No.1 in cancelling the allotment. A Division Bench of this Court took up the Writ Appeals along with the contempt case and by judgment dated 8-5-2001 dismissed the Writ Appeals. The respondents assailed the order passed in the Writ Appeals by filing S.L.P (C) No.7152 to 7157 of 2002. The appeals filed by the respondent came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 01-11-2002. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above-referred appeals, need to be noted and it is thus:- issuing resume land by “(7) The learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated the contentions which were urged before the High Court. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, as approved by the Division Bench, that on the facts and material placed before the High Court, even in 1996, no developmental activity had been undertaken by HUDA and the stand taken by HUDA that it had spent more than Rs. 1 crore and that the lands could not be resumed by the State Government, was untenable. The High Court also rightly took the view that the land originally belonged to the State Government and under Section 20 of the A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975, the State Government could always the appropriate Governmental Orders. Finally, if at all HUDA was aggrieved by the act of the State Government resuming the lands which had been assigned to the aggrieved petitioners, the HUDA should have challenged such orders. HUDA not having challenged the orders of resumption, the orders of resumption became final as far as HUDA was concerned. The contention that Zoning Regulations were likely to be violated by assigning and delivering possession of the land in favour of the writ petitioners, also has no substance. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, Zoning Regulations can always be relaxed, if necessary. In any event, if the other assignees were permitted to carry on the same business in the same area, it could hardly be contended that the Zoning Regulations were likely to be violated only in the case of original three writ petitioners. The contention that the value of Rs. 200/ - per sq. yard is far too less as compared to the market price, is also of no avail. The value of the land was fixed on a report made by the Collector after due enquiry and, presumably, reflects the prevalent price in the year 1994. Merely because the land prices may have risen subsequently, after laying out the plots in the adjoining area and the provision of amenities the the assignments could not have been assignments, transaction by cancelled. Article 14 guarantees equal treatment to persons who are equally situated. That the three writ petitioners were situated equally as M/s. DOT Publishers and Roots Public School, is beyond cavil. The High Court was therefore right in taking the view that there was infringement of Article 14. ( 8. ) Another contention urged before the Division Bench of the High Court and reiterated before us, is that there were no contracts signed by complying with the formalities under Article 299 of the Constitution and therefore the Government was not obliged to honour its commitments. This contention has rightly been repelled by the Division Bench of the High Court by pointing out that the sale of the land was not as a the State result of any commercial Government, but pursuant to its declared socio-economic policy reflected in the scheme of allotment of land to give to Newspapers Concerns and Educational incentives Institutions. The High Court rightly held that this was an executive act falling within the province of Article 162 and not within the ambit of Article 299 of the Constitution. The material placed on record does clearly indicate that undue favour was shown to Roots Public School and M/s. DOT Publishers as the assigned lands were handed over to them even without full payment being made. In the case of M/s. DOT Publishers, not even a rupee had been paid by them as on the date on which advance possession was given to them. In the case of three writ petitioners before the High Court, who, in our opinion, were equally situated, there was hostile discrimination against them in that, despite fully depositing the amount of Rs. 19,36,000/-, possession was not handed over to them on one pretext or the other and they were driven to filing writ petitions before the High Court. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court under appeal holding that there was violation of the Fundamental Rights of the writ petitioners under Article 14 is justified and needs to be upheld. ( 9. ) We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench that the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex. P4) despite the judgment of the Single Judge and the pendency of the writ appeals filed by the State Government and the HUDA before the High Court was contumacious on the part of the State Government. We think that the Division Bench took a somewhat gracious view of the matter in not inflicting punishment for contempt of Court, but rested content with quashing the offending G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex P-4). In our view, the appellants appear to have been lightly let off. There is no scope for interference on this count.”

3. After dismissal of the appeals in the Supreme Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.482, 483 and 484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 20th July, 2004 allotting Ac.2-00 to each of the petitioners in Sy.No.403 correlated to T.S.No.2, Block-D, ward No.9 and T.S.No.1, Block-F, Shaikpet village & Mandal and directed the District Collector, Hyderabad to take necessary action to handover the lands to the petitioners duly executing the deed of conveyance. The petitioners were asked by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to give their consent for conveyance deed under letters dated 28-02-

2005. Ultimately, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners individually on 06-01-2006 by the District Collector, Hyderabad District-2nd respondent calling upon each of the petitioners to explain as to why allotment cannot be cancelled for not putting the land for use for which allotment has been made. The petitioners submitted explanation to the show-cause notices. The Government being not satisfied with the explanations offered by the petitioners, proceeded to issue Memo No.14116/Assn.III/ 1/96, Dated 1.9.2007 directing the District Collector, Hyderabad to resume land allotted to the petitioners. For better appreciation, I may refer the text of the memo, which reads as hereunder:- “ GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE (ASSIGN.III) DEPARTMENT Memo No.14116/Assn.III/1/96 Dated : 1.09.2007 Sub: Lands – Hyderabad District – Shaikpet Mandal and village- Land allotted to M/s DOT Publishers for construction of administrative offices, Rest house etc., Further G.O issued for issue of NOC giving another chance to DOT publishers – Show cause notice issued – Violation of condition – Cancellation of allotment orders – Resumption- Orders – Issued - Reg. Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.800, Rev (Assn.III) Dept., Dt.5.8.1994 2. G.O.Ms.No.482 Rev (Assn.III) Dept., Dt.20.7.2004 3. G.O.Ms.No.483, Rev (Assn.III) Dept., Dt.20.7.2004 4. G.O.Ms.No.484, Rev (Assn.III) Dept., Dt.20.7.2004 20.7.2004. 5. Instructions issued by the Hon’ble CM, in the meeting held on 18.6.2007 in the Camp Office. * * * The attention of the Collector, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and he is directed to resume the land allotted to M/s. DOT Publishers as well as other three Organizations viz., M/s. Maharshi Publishers Ltd., M/s. Creative Industries Ltd., and M/s. Balaji Administrative Services Pvt., Ltd., for violating the conditions issued in G.O 1 to 4th cited for allotment of land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in S.No.403 corelated to T.S.No.2, Block- D, Ward No.9 and T.S.No.1, Block-F, Shaikpet village, Hyderabad District. The firms, if they still require land for running Newspapers, they can approach the Collector, Hyderabad District afresh for allotment of land ion any one of the industrial areas.

2. The Collector, Hyderabad District is therefore requested to take immediate action and furnish Compliance report to Government in the matter. M.SAMUEL, PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” Pursuant the Memo, the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, issued Proceedings dated 02-11-2007 directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the lands to Tahasildar, Shaikpet Mandal. The memo issued by the Government-1st respondent and the proceedings issued by the District Collector-2nd respondent are under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 7-3-2008. An interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition came to be issued on the even date, vide W.P.M.P.No.6369 of 2008. The respondents entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.2000 of 2008 to vacate interim order dated 7-3-2008 passed W.P.M.P.No.6369 of 2008.

5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

6. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

7. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel contends that the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners by the Government is on market value and since the petitioners paid the market value, it is impermissible for the respondents to recall the Government orders, whereunder lands have been allotted to the petitioners. It is also contended by him that there are no laches on the part of the petitioners in making efforts to use the land for which allotment has been made. He would further contend that failure to entertain the applications filed by the petitioners before the State authorities within the stipulated time cannot be made as a ground for cancellation of the allotment orders. He would further contend that the Government has not at all considered the explanations offered by the petitioners in issuing memo dated 01-9-2007. Learned Senior counsel took me to the memo dated 1-9-2007, the text of which has been extracted supra, in support of his submission Government have not considered the explanations offered by the petitioners to the show-cause notices.

8. Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader submits that the land has been allotted to the petitioners on concession rate for specified purpose and as the petitioners failed to use the land for the said purpose and since the purpose for which land has been allotted has become extinct, the Government is justified in cancelling the allotment and issuing instructions to the District Collector to resume the land.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is a matter of record that the show cause notices dated 6-1-2006 have been issued to the petitioners proposing cancellation of the allotment. The petitioners submitted their explanations to the show cause notices. It is a matter of record that the original allotments in favour of the petitioners were made by the Government in the year 1994; vide G.O.Ms.Nos.482, 483 and 484 dated 20th July, 2004. The above-referred Government Orders were issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Collector and District Magistrate, issued show cause notice dated 6-1-2006. The petitioners submitted explanation to the show cause notices. The proper authority to cancel the assignment is the Government. The memo issued by the Government has been extracted supra. It is not indicated in the memo that the Government considered the explanations offered by the petitioners. Without looking into the explanations offered by the petitioners, the Government issued instructions to the Collector to resume land allotted to the petitioners. Subsequent proceedings dated 2-11-2007 issued by the District Collector-2nd respondent are based on the Memo No.14116/Assn.III/1/96 dated 01-09-2007. The basic order for cancellation of the allotment is Memo dated 01-9- 2007 issued by the Government. A plain reading of the above-referred memo indicates that the Government have not looked into the explanations offered by the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that the Government Memo No.14116/Assn.III/1/1996 dated 1-9-2007 and consequential order passed by the District Collector cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside Memo No.14116/Assn.III/1/1996, dated 01-9-2007 and consequential order passed thereon. However, the Government is at liberty to pass orders afresh on considering the explanation already submitted by the petitioners. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.17-07-2012 RAR