M/S Coastal Andhra Powr Limited vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1260 AP

 
    

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI - NG

* a a
in os
fd,

 

(Special Original Jurisdiction) Behe os:
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAREH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

:PRESENT: a '
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION NO: 5058 OF 2021
Between: Aone

1. M/s Coastal Andhra PewEr Limited, A company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Reliance Center, 19,
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Mumbai - 400001 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

2. M/s. Reliance Power Limited, A company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Reliance Center, 19,
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Mumbai - 400001 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

Petitioners
AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (L.A.)
Department, Secretariat, Velugapudi, Vijayawada Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh

- The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

The Tahsildar, Muthukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District Andhra Pradesh

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, D.No. 22-19 Floor II Block A
Jasthi Towers Sai puran Colony Road, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh -
921225

The Revenue Divisional Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

The Tahsildar, T.P. Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh

WN

Om

Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances
Stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased To pass an order or
orders, direction or writ more particular in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus

(a) To declare that the action of the Respondents contained in Order No.
Re.G4/2060/2015, dated 25.02.2021 requiring the Petitioner No. 1 to re-deliver the
acquired land admeasuring Ac. 2068.2475 Cents at SPSR Nellore District in Andhra
Pradesh (which was acquired under the 1894 Act in the year 2007 -2010) on the ground
that the petitioner has failed to constructoperate an ultra-mega power project, is
manifestly arbitrary and without authority of law and consequently set aside the same
and direct the Respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment by the
Petitioner No. 1 of the said land,

(b) To declare that the action of the of the Respondents contained in Order No. Re.
E2/5981/2008, dated 27.02.2021 relating to the claim of re-delivery of the subject land
admeasuring Ac. 567.26 Cents at SPSR Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh (which was
acquired under the 1894 Act in the year 2007 - 2010) on the ground that the Petitioner
No. 1 has failed to construct/operate an ultra-mega power project, is manifestly arbitrary
and without authority of law and consequently set aside the same and direct the
Respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment by the Petitioner No.1
of the said land.
 

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the
Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner No. 1 from the subject land admeasuring
Acres 2600.90 Cents as detailed in Para 15 above situated at SPSR Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of WP 5058 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the
operation and effect of the Order No. Re. E2/5981/2008, dated 27.02.2021 relating to
the claim of re-delivery of the subject land admeasuring Ac. 567.26 Cents at SPSR
Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of WP 5058 of 2021, on the file of
the High Court.

IA NO: 3 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the
operation and effect of the Order No. Rc. G4/2060/2015, dated 25.02.2021 relating to
the claim of re-delivery of the subject land admeasuring Ac. 2068.2475 Cents at SPSR
Nellore District; in Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of WP 5058 of 2021, on the file of
the High Court.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit
filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.S.Narasimha, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Vikram Pooserla Advocate for the Petitioner
and of Mr.Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the Court made the following.

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.S.Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 25.2.2021 passed by the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District / the second respondent herein resuming the land of an extent of Acs.2068.25 cents for violating the conditions of grant by invoking the provisions of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the 2013 Act) and proceedings dated 27.2.2021 in respect of land of an extent of Acs.567.26 cents. The said lands were alienated

for the purpose of establishing a mega power project.

The learned Senior Counsel inter alia raises several legal contentions including that the order of resumption by invoking Section 101 of the 2013 Act is wholly unsustainable in as much as the said provision has no application to the facts of the case as the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 1894 Act) and alienated to the petitioners on

payment of entire land acquisition compensation. He also states that the legal position with regard to the invocation of Section 101 of the 2013 Act vis-a-vis acquisition of the land under the 1894 Act has been succinctly dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in the light of the judgment in the said case. He further submits that the project is delayed due to change of policy by the Government of Indonesia and in fact the petitioners are negotiating with the Government and other authorities for settlement of the issues on payment of acquisition cost of Rs.250.00 crores and other terms, which is evident from the material placed on record. Learned Senior Counsel submits that on an earlier occasion in similar situation, an order dated 22.7.2017 was passed by the then District Collector and the same was challenged in Writ | Petition No.33246 of 2017 wherein an order dated 06.10.2017 directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed and that the same was subsequently extended until further orders. He submits that in view of the above position, the petitioners are entitled for protection of this Court as the impugned order is passed in similar

circumstances.

The learned Additional Advocate General while accepting the submission with regard to invocation of Section 101 of the 2013 Act is not legally tenable, however, contends that the impugned orders are passed not only under the provisions of the 2013 Act, but also for violation of conditions of the grant in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the Government Orders. He submits that one of the conditions of the grant is that the project should be completed within four years from the date of the grant and the land was handed over to the petitioners in the year 2008 and the project should have been completed by 2012. He further submits that as the condition has not been adhered to, the respondents after giving due notice has passed the order impugned in the present writ petition. He further submits that the condition of the grant has not been challenged by the petitioner and further that as per G.O.Ms.No.57, Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 16.2.2015, the Collector is empowered to resume the land when there is violation of the terms of the grant though the allotment was made prior to issuance of the said G.O. Apart from the said argument, learned Additional Advocate General also submits that as per Board Standing Orders 24(6), the Collector is empowered to resume the land in the event of violation of terms of the grant. In so far as the writ petition and the interim orders passed in Writ Petition No.33246 of 2017, learned Additional Advocate General states that the subject matter therein is altogether different and it pertains to ash-pond which is situated in a different Village and the orders relied on by the learned Senior Counsel has no relevance to the facts of the present writ petition. He further submits that as per his instructions, possession of the land was taken over under

cover of Panchanama dated 27.2.2021.

In the reply thereto, learned Senior Counsel submits that the whole case of the Government that the petitioners were granted the land in question is under misconception as the land in question was acquired from the private parties by following the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 more particularly Chapter -- Vil of the said Act and thereafter it has been settled in favour of the petitioners on payment of consideration. Therefore, the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General that it is a grant is wholly untenable. Further, he submits that though negotiations were going on between the Government and the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners are willing to make over the land to the Government on payment of costs of Rs.250.00 crores and other incidental expenses etc., incurred by the petitioners so far the same has not reached any conclusion and in the said circumstances initiation of action by the second respondent is _ wholly unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to the impugned proceedings of the Collector directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore to take over possession after completion of process as per Rules, submits that the question of taking over possession of more than 2600 acres is not possible and disputed Panchanama stated to have been conducted on 27.2.2021. He further

asserts that the petitioners are still in possession of the subject matter lands.

In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and perusing the earlier orders in Writ Petition No.33246 of 2017, dated 06.10.2017 wherein similar | contentions were examined, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires detailed consideration in view of the legal and contentious issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate

General.

However, keeping in view the balance of convenience and the irreparable prejudice in favour of the petitioners, there shall be a direction to both parties to maintain status quo with regard to the subject matter lands existing as on today. As there is a dispute with regard to Panchanama stated to have been conducted on 27.2.2021 and taking over possession, there shall be a further direction to the respondents not to take further steps in any manner pursuant to the said

Panchanama.

List the matter after two weeks for filing counters of the concerned respondents.

Learned Additional Advocate General shall furnish a copy of Panchanama

dated 27.2.2021 received by him to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Sd/-P.VenkataRam Ka / DEPUTY REGIST

ITTRUE COPY// a For SECTION OFFICER

To,

wn

DO

co ON

SRL

_ The Principal Secretary, Revenue (L.A.) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,

Secretariat, Velugapudi, Vijayawada Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

_ The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

The Tahsildar, Muthukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District Andhra Pradesh

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, D.No. 22-19 Floor Il Block A Jasthi Towers Sai puran Colony Road, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 521225

The Revenue Divisional Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

The Tahsildar, T.P. Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh (1 to 6 by RPAD)

One CC to SRI.VIKRAM POOSERLA Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court of A. P.[OUT]

One spare copy

HIGH COURT

NJSJ

DATED:02/03/2021

NOTE: LIST THE MATTER AFTER TWO WEEKS FOR FILING COUNTERS

ORDER

WP.No.5058 of 2021

STATUS QUO