Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Ganesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.6033 of 2021
ORDER:
One G.Ganesh and 48 others filed this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.9 in converting
the industrial land into residential plots and carrying on Real
Estate business in the land assigned to Nizam Sugars
Limited/respondent No.10 as illegal arbitrary, unjust, contrary to
law, and principles of natural justice guaranteed under Article 14,
21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct
the respondents not to permit respondent No.9 to lay plots and to
re-convey the land belonging to the petitioners.
The petitioners were all agriculturists living by agriculture,
owned the land in Sy.Nos.358-1, 359-1, 359-2, 360, 361-1, 361-2,
367-1, 367-2, 367-3, 368-1A, 368-2, Pargi Village, Hindupur
Taluq, Ananthapuram District. While they were living by
cultivating the above land, the Government acquired the land for
establishing a Sugar factory in terms of the requisition from the
Secretary and Chief Accountant, Nizam Sugar Factory Limited,
Hyderabad in the limits of Parigi Village. Thereafter, the
government issued G.O.RT.No.495 dated 08.06.1977 for
establishing a sugar factory at Parigi. Further, the Industries and
Commerce Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued
an order sanctioning an amount of Rs.100/- towards the State
Government contribution for payment of compensation in respect
of their land notified in the G.O. for the establishment of Sugar
factory at Parigi.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Penukonda,
passed an Award vide Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978 and
took possession of the land for the Nizam Sugar Factory at Parigi
on 28.04.1977. Out of Ac.150.00 cents of land acquired, the
factory was constructed in the land admeasuring Ac.12.42 cents in
Sy.No.360 and Ac.6.40, 4.60, 7.63 in Sy.No.367/1, 367/2, 367/4,
total extent of Ac.31.05 cents was utilized for quarters. The
petitioners Nos.12, 13, 21, 22 were not paid any compensation for
the land admeasuring Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.No.359/2 and Ac.2.00 in
Sy.No. 368/2 till date as the land acquired was assigned land. The
total extent of assigned land is about Ac.12.32 cents and the other
assignees were also not paid any compensation.
The land belonging to Sri Lord AnjaneyaSwamy Temple in
Sy.No.294/3 admeasuring Ac.10.26 and Sy.No.293 admeasuring
Ac.6.02 cents was also acquired, but the temple refused to receive
the compensation and the said amount was deposited under the
revenue Deposit, thereafter the petitioners are not aware of
payment of compensation.
The Tahsildar, Hindupur addressed a letter to the General
Manager, Nizam Sugar Factory Limited on 06.01.1982 handing
over the land admeasuring Ac.143.56 cents. Thereafter,
respondent No.10 constructed a Sugar Factory in the said land,
but the same was not operated for long and the villagers employed
therein where thrown on streets. The State Government owned
49% share in the factory and the remaining share was held by
Delta Sugars. Nizam sugar factory has been laid off by Telangana
Government in 2015 on the ground that they will completely
handover the factory to the Government, but no action has been
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
taken on factory and employees were not paid salaries for many
years. The land of the petitioners was forcibly acquired by the
Government and the Government has promised to provide
employment to the family members of the petitioners. Despite the
forcible acquisition, the petitioners did not assail the same in view
of the Sovereign Promise made by the State and the share of the
State Government imposing faith in the public acquiring valuable
land.
It is the contention of the petitioners that when the land is
acquired for industrial purpose and an industrial area is setup,
there cannot be any residential activity in the land earmarked for
industrial purpose. Contrary to the same, respondent No.10 sold
the property to Sri Renuka Sugars Limited, vide Registered Sale
deed dated 24.08.1998. Thereafter, Shree Renuka Sugar Factory
has executed a Sale deed bearing Document No.8126 of 2007 in
favour of Rassai Properties and Industries Limited. Thereafter, the
Rassai Properties executed an agreement of Sale cum General
Power of Attorney vide Document No. 8214 of 2007 in favour of
Beneficent Knowledge Parks and Properties Limited to M/s. Noble
Enterprises and there is a cloud over the property and dispute of
title and ownership.
In the year 1994, respondent No.10 during late hours have
shifted the machinery to Karnataka State, during which time,
when the said illegal transportation was opposed by the villagers
and false cases were foisted against them. Acquisition was not
challenged with a fond hope that the Government would take over
the company and put it into operation for the betterment of the
village and in the interest of public at large. As there was no
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
progress and the said land was becoming barren, the petitioners
started cultivation of the said land and made representations to
the Tahsildar, Station House Officer, Parigi on 16.09.2020,
17.09.2020 requesting the authorities that they have parted nearly
Ac.115.00 cents of land to the Nizam Sugars Factory as they were
promised that there shall be employment in the factory, but they
lost both employment and land. Therefore, requested to resume the
land and allot the same to the petitioners. In response to the
representation dated 17.09.2020, the Tahsildar has issued an
endorsement on 18.09.2020 stating that, an enquiry has been
conducted in this regard and a report was submitted to the
Sub-Collector, Penugonda. Again, the petitioners made
representations dated 21.09.2020, 07.10.2020, 14.10.2020,
17.10.2020 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and the
Sub-Registrar, Hindupur, Ananthapur District requesting the
authorities not to give any permission for sale of the land belonging
to the Sugar Factory.
It is further contended that much extent was acquired, part
of it was utilized by the Nizam Sugars Limited - respondent No.10,
remaining land was not put to use by respondent No.10 and the
petitioners requested the revenue officers and police officers to
provide protection for cultivation in the said land and requested to
stop the real estate business in the land. Nearly 100 families took
over possession of the land and sowed seed of Jowar crop, but after
15 days, the Rassai Properties and their security have sprayed
chemical, destroyed the crop and damaged the same, thereby the
petitioners were deprived of not only their employment, but also
livelihood of cultivation. Consequently, they made a complaint on
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
24.10.2020, 25.10.2020 to the Station House Officaer, Parigi.
However, no action has been taken till date.
Despite several representations, no action was taken, but the
Gram Panchayat contemplating to grant permission for layout.
Again, the petitioners made a representation on 28.11.2020, but
for no use. Thus, the act of the respondents in converting the
industrial land into plots and doing real estate business depriving
the petitioners both employment and livelihood is impermissible
under law and violative of fundamental right of the petitioners
guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of
India, requested to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioners.
Respondent No.4 - Director of Industries, Government of
Andhra Pradesh filed counter affidavit denying material allegations
inter alia contending that no permission has been accorded by
respondent No.4 to respondent No.9 to lay plots and respondent
No.4 is no way concerned for issuing such permission. Respondent
No.4 submitted a proposal to the Government on 25.11.2021 for
issue of clear directives on No objection certificate for change of
land use from Industrial to Residential. The Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department is the
competent authority to issue permission for change of use from
industrial to residential, consequently, respondent No.4 has
nothing to do with the dispute, requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
Respondent No.8 - Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, filed detailed
counter denying material allegations while admitting about the
acquisition of land totalling to Ac.135.55 cents for Respondent
No.10- Nizam Sugars Limited, sale to Respondent No.12-
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
M/s.Renuka Sugars Limited and also admitted about the sale of
Ac.135.55 cents by Sri Renuka Sugars Limited to M/s. Rassai
Properties and Industries Limited by registered sale deed vide Sale
deed dated 21.04.2006 vide document No. 8136/2007 which are
as follows.
Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent Classification as per
Diglot.
1 360 12.42 G.D. Patta
2 359-1 12.32 G.D. Patta
3 356 14.23 G.D. Patta
4 357-1 11.62 G.D. Patta
5 357-3 8.23 G.D. Patta
6 358-1 19.23 G.D. Patta
7 293 14.29 Inam Dry
8 367-1 6.40 G.D. Patta
9 367-2 4.60 G.D.Patta
10 367-3 5.25 G.D.Patta
11 367-4 7.63 G.D.Patta
12 368-3A 1.40 G.D.Patta
13 368-1C 2.86 G.D.Patta
14 368-1B 2.86 G.D.Patta
15 368-1A 9.23 G.D.Patta
16 361-1 2.32 G.D.Patta
17 361-2 0.30 G.D.Patta ..
18 361-3 0.11 G.D.Patta
19 361-4 0.25 G.D.Patta
Total 135.55
Respondent No.8 also admitted that from the date of
purchase of the above land by M/s. Rassai Properties and
Industries Ltd., (at present Beneficent Knowledge Park) the
above land are under their right and possession. Accordingly,
the Revenue Records have been mutated infavour of M/s.
Rassai Properties and Industries Ltd., (at present Beneficent
Knowledge Park) as per 1.B. Khatha No.2272 .
It is further contended that apart from the patta land, the
assigned land which were resumed to Government for allotment
to Nizam Sugar Factory as per Tahsildar Hindupur proceedings
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Rc.No.1484/77/A2 dated 06.01.1979 and Collector‟s R.Dis.
No.5429/77.
As per settlement register of Parigi village, Sy.No.368.2
measuring extent Ac.3.65 cents of Parigi village is noted
Government Dry Assessed waste land. Subsequently, it was
sub-divided as Sy.No.368-2, Ac.2.00 cents and Sy.No.368-4
extent Ac.1.65 cents and assigned vide D.A.R.Dis. No. 454/62
dated 21.11.1955 to one Dasappa S/o Narasimhappa and
N.Mohammad Hosam as per G.O.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954
with conditions. These land were resumed to Government by
Tahsildar vide Rc.No.1484/77 dated 17.05.1977. As per revenue
records, the land is noted as Government land (Assessed waste)
and the land was resumed for public purpose i.e., for
establishment of Nizam Sugar Factory. The compensation was
not paid to the assignees at the time of resumption as per D.
patta condition No.17.
As per the diglot Register of Parigi Village and Mandal, the
land in Sy.No.293 ext. 15.02 Acres and 294-3 ext. 10.26 Acres
was classified as Endowment land (Sri Anjineyaswamy
Nowakhari Nimitham (service Inam). It is mentioned in the
diglot that, the said land was transferred to Nizam Sugar
Factory as per Award No.1/78-79, dated 22.04.1978 and as per
8A No.2/88, dated.24.08.1978. An amount of Rs.60,166.40 ps.
has been received on 02.09.1978 by the Assistant
Commissioner, Endowments, Ananthapuramu towards
compensation for the acquisition of above land vide Award
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
No.1/78-79 through Bank Draft bearing No. OL/AE 202034,
dated 02.09.1978.
The Nizam Sugars Ltd. sold land to an extent of Ac.10.26
cents in Sy.No.294-3 to Central P2 Basic Seed Form Quarters,
Parigi and sold land to an extent of Ac.0.918 cents in Sy.No.293
to the Chairman, APSEB, Hyderabad vide Document
No.1716/95. Further, M/S Beneficent Knowledge Park have
sold an extent of Ac.8.06 cents, Ac.0.23 cents, and Ac.1.45
cents, totalling Ac.9.74 cents in Sy.No.293 to Indian Designs
Exports Private Limited vide Document No.7181/2013,
2832/2015 & 5285/2017. At present a sub-station and Indian
Garments are situated in the above extent sold.
Respondent No. 9 through a letter dated 17.02.2014
addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer Penukonda through
the Tahsildar, Parigi has confirmed their patta land and also
requested to exempt from levying Non-Agricultural Land
Conversion tax in respect of the land purchased by the M/s.
Rassai Properties and Industries Limited,Mumbai.
It is specifically contended that the land was acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and handed over to
respondent No.10. Respondent No.10 used the said acquired
land for 20 years and then sold them to M/s.Renuka Sugars
Pvt. Ltd., and then to M/s.Rassai Properties and Industries
Limited. The land acquired and handed over to respondent
No.10 could not be taken back and given to the legal heirs of the
Pattadars whose land was acquired. There is no such provision
under Land Acquisition Act 1894 or any other Act. Therefore,
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners, requested
to dismiss the writ petition.
Respondent No.9 - Beneficent Knowledge Parks and
Properties Limited, erstwhile, Rassai Properties and Industries
Limited filed separate counter affidavit denying material
allegations inter alia explaining the nature of acquisition of
property by the Government for Nizam Sugars Limited and the
same was run for few years and became sick industry, later sold
to M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limited, and later sold the same to
respondent No.9 - Rassai Properties and Industries Limited
under registered sale deed giving details including numbers of
sale deeds and dates, they will be referred at appropriate stage
while discussing the relevant issue to avoid repetation. The
following the relevant contentions raised by respondent No.9.
(a) The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition
as their land was already acquired and they ceased to be the
owners of the property.
(b) The dispute is between two private individuals and the
petitioners have nothing to do with the reliefs claimed in the
petition, on this ground also the petitioners are disentitled to
claim any of the reliefs.
(c) The title of respondent No.9 is unassailable as respondent No.9
became bonafide purchaser of the property for valuable
consideration from its owner i.e. M/s. The Renuka Sugars
Limited and that out of the land admeasuring Ac.143.56 cents
acquired for respondent No.10 by Award No.1/78-79, dated
22.04.1978, the land admeasuring Ac.135.55 cents together
with the assets of the Sudhanagar sugar unit situated in Parigi
Village, Hindpur in the Ananthapur District of Andhra Pradesh
and employees, buildings, plant and machinery thereof as
described therein, were first sold by respondent No.10 to M/s.
Renuka Sugars Limited under registered sale deed dated
24.08.1998 registered with the Sub-Registrar, bearing document
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
No.5882. The said sale was effected after Sale Notifications
dated 07.10.1996 and 03.03.1997 for sale of units at
Amruthanagar, Miryalaguda, Sudhanagar, Hindupur and
Metpalli, Mutyampet were published in Eenadu newspaper
permitting the said units to be sold. The said Sale Notifications
were challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 8168 of 1997 and this Court by
order dated 22.04.1997, dismissed the said Writ Petition after
observing that the main grievance in the said Writ Petition was
the privatisation of the public sector and shifting of the Nizam
Sugar unit from Hindpur and held that "it is a matter of policy of
the Government whether to retain a unit as a Public Sector or
privatise it, and this court cannot interfere with the said policy
unless it amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power. It is pointed
out that this court cannot sit in judgment on the policy of the
Government in privatisation of a public sector and if the unit is
running on losses in spite of pumping funds to revitalise it, it is
open to the Government to take appropriate decision including a
decision to sell the same. Moreover, as was recited by
Respondent No.10 in the said Sale Deed dated 24.08.1998, the
consent of the shareholders of respondent No.10 under Section
293 (1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the sale and
disposition of the property had been obtained at the 57 th Annual
General Meeting of shareholders held on 29.09.1995 at which
the shareholders authorised the Board of directors of respondent
No.10 to sell and dispose of the assets of the Sugar Unit. As
such, the property was sold to M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limited
- Respondent No.12 by respondent No.10 under registered sale
deed (referred above) for valuable consideration, who in turn
sold the same to respondent No.9.
(d) The petitioners are trying to play fraud to obtain an order having
parted with their property under Award No.1/78-79 dated
22.04.1978, as such they are not entitled to claim any relief.
(e) The very filing of petition is an abuse of process of the Court as
the reliefs claimed in the petition are purely civil in nature
between two private individuals.
(f) There is any amount of delay and latches in claiming the relief in
the writ petition.
(g) No public interest is involved, thereby the petition is not
maintainable.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
(h) The petitioners made various representations without legal basis
and submitting representations without any legal basis is only a
futile attempt to create equity on the title of respondent No.9.
(i) The petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of
necessary party i.e. M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limtied, who
purchased the property from respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars
Limited under registered sale deed and sold the same to
respondent No.9, but M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limited is not
impleaded as a party, thereby the petition itself is not
maintainable.
Respondent No.9 also raised several legal issues relying on
the judgments of the Apex Court in "Sulochana Chandrakant
Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and others1"
"C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary2" "Assam Industrial
Development Corporation v. Gillapukri Tea Company
Limited and others3" "Northern Indian Glass Industries v.
Jaswant Singh and others4" "Tukaram Kanna Joshi v.
M.I.D.C.5". On the basis of the principle laid down in the above
judgments, respondent No.9 contended that the writ petition is
not maintainable. Respondent No.9 also asserted that
respondent No.9 became absolute owner of the property and the
petitioners sought relief by abuse of process of the Court,
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Respondent No.10 - The Nizam Sugars Limited filed
detailed counter admitting acquisition of property and sale of
the same to M/s.The Renuka Sugars Limited. It is specifically
contended that respondent No.10 - The Nizam Sugars Limited
(2010) 8 SCC 467
(1997) 2 SCC 627
(2021) 3 SCC 388
(2003) 1 SCC 335
AIR 2013 SC 565
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
was established in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad at Bodhan,
Nizamabad District in 1937. Over a period, the factory was
expanded throughout the then State of Andhra Pradesh i.e.
before bifurcation and it was the biggest public sector sugar
Industry in the country.
It is contended that respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars
Limited (NSL) is a State Government Company and the then
Government of Andhra Pradesh owned 98.88% of the share
capital. In view of bifurcation of the then State of Andhra
Pradesh on the appointed date 02.06.2014, Nizam Sugars
Limited has come under the Telangana State Government
basing upon the existence of the operational units in the State of
Telangana only.
Respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited was registered
at Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad, it was incorporated on
17.04.1937, it is a unlisted public company, it is classified as a
'public limited company' or 'company limited by shares' and a
Government Company as the State Government holding more
than 51% of the equity. Nizam Sugars Limited had eight units in
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh before it's bifurcation
namely, (i) Hindupur Unit, (ii) Miryalaguda Unit, (iii)
Zaheerabad unit, (iv) Bobbili & Seethanagaram Units, (v)
Latchayyapeta Unit, (vi) Bodhan Unit including one Distillery
Unit, (vii) Metpalli Unit and (viii) Mumbajipalli Unit.
It is contended that respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars
Limited (NSL) and one Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited (NDSL) are
different companies and not one and the same. Nizam Sugars
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Limited (NSL) is a Government Company, Nizam Deccan Sugars
Limited (NDSL) is not a Government Company but it is a Public
Limited Company only. After two decades, the Sudhanagar
Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of respondent No.10 Nizam Sugars
Limited became sick as such the then Government of Andhra
Pradesh took a policy decision to privatize this Unit also along
with it's other sick units. Out of the aforesaid 8 units of
respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited, sick units were
sold/Disposed during late 1990s and Hindupur Unit (i.e.
Sudhanagar Sugars Unit) is one among them. The Hindupur
Unit was sold to Shree Renuka Sugars Limited only after
obtaining all approvals from the then Government of Andhra
Pradesh.
It is also contended that the land was acquired for the
construction of Sudhanagar Sugar Unit at Parigi Village,
Hindupur Taluk which belongs to respondent No.10, only after
following due procedure of law. Accordingly compensation was
paid to them under the Land Acquisition Act and nobody had
objected or protested for acquisition of land. It is settled
principle of law that once award is passed, the land vests on the
State and the land losers cannot claim any right whatsoever.
After receiving compensation several decades ago, the
petitioners are disputing the land acquisition process without
any basis or right, on this ground alone the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
It is contended that the allegation of the petitioners that in
1994, during late hours, respondent No.10 herein i.e. the Nizam
Sugars Limited had shifted the machinery to Karnataka State is a
baseless accusation. In fact, respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars
Limited obtained all approvals and permissions from the then
Government of Andhra Pradesh to sell the Sudhanagar Sugar
(Hindupur) Unit to the M/s.Renuka Sugars Limited, Karnataka.
Initially, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and
Commerce (SUGAR) Department addressed a Letter
No.656/SI/A2/94-9, dated 29.06.1996 to the Nizam Sugars
Limited, authorizing the Board of Directors of respondent No.10 -
Nizam Sugars Limited to take steps to privatize the sick unit at
Hindupur with the private party being asked to revive the sugar
unit at this place. No private party came forward to revive the
sudhanagar sugar unit at Hindupur. The then Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (SUGAR) Department
addressed a Letter No.656/Sug/A2/94-13, dated 15.01.1997 to
respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited, authorizing the Board
of Directors of Nizam Sugars Limited to relax the condition of
revival and to permit the private party to relocate or shift the
machinery of the Hindupur unit to make the bid attractive. The
then Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce
(SUG) Department addressed a Letter No.656/sug/A2/94-20,
dated 10.10.1997 to respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited
permitting the Chairman and Managing Dirctor, Nizam Sugars
Limited to go ahead with the sale transaction of Sudhanagar unit
of Hindupur with M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited and also to sign on
the Memorandum of Understanding with them.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
It is contended that M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited
(incorporated on 25.10.1995) at Belgam, Karnataka State,
purchased the aforesaid Sudhanagar Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of
Nizam Sugars Limited situated at Parigi Village and Mandal, near
Hindupur, Ananthapur District through the Sale Deed dated
24.08.1998. All the land, buildings, plant and machinery along
with the employees were taken over by the Shree Renuka Sugars
Limited. As per the Memorandum of Agreement dated 30.09.1997,
M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited agreed to continue the employment of
the labourers/employees of Nizam Sugars Limited and also agreed
not to resort to retrenchment of any of the employees. Subsequent
to purchase of the Sudhanagar Sugar Unit by Shree Renuka
Sugars Limited, it transferred all the plant and machinery along
with employees to the Munoli Unit at Belgaum, Karnataka State in
the year 1999.
It is contended that Rythu Samkshema Sangham, Hindupur
filed a Writ Petition No.8168 of 1997 challenging the Sale
Notification dated 03.03.1997 in respect of Sudhanagar Sugar Unit
(Hindupur) Ananthpur District of the Nizam Sugars Limited. On
22.04.1997, the aforesaid writ petition W.P.No.8168 of 1997 was
dismissed by the High Court at Hyderabad observing that it is a
matter of policy of the Government whether to retain a Unit as a
Public Sector or Privatize it. The order dated 22.04.1997 passed in
W.P.No.8168 of 1997 was assailed in W.A.No.887 of 1997 before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was dismissed on
18.08.1997 confirming the order of the learned single Judge,
hence the order passed in W.P.No.8168 of 1997 became final.
Respondent No.10 denied the loss of employment of various
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
persons in the industry and that the claim of the petitioners is
hopelessly barred by doctrine of latches in view of the order passed
in W.P.No.8168 of 1997 and W.A.No.887 of 1997.
It is further contended that since the Government permitted
to sell the industry to M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limited,
respondent No.10 has nothing to do with the writ petition and no
relief be granted against respondent No.10. Finally, it is contended
that the petitioners have no right over the subject land, hence the
question of infringement of their right by the respondents does not
arise, thereby the petitioners are not entitled to claim writ of
Mandamus, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Respondent No.11, who is a social worker and member of
Marxist Party, filed separate counter, but he is supporting the
petitioners and his contentions are nothing but reiteration of
contentions urged in the writ petition. However, it is specifically
contended that the land acquired for establishing the M/s.Nizam
Sugar Factory was not used entire acquired land and put in use
about Ac.34.30 cents out of an extent of Ac.132.57 cents. The
remaining land has not been used and kept fallow till transfer to
Sree Renuka Sugars. M/s. Renuka Sugars is also not put in use
the acquired land and sold out to Rasai Properties and Industries
Limited. In view of the above facts and circumstances the
Respondents No.9 is not entitled to use the land for real estate and
the land has to be used for establishing industries only and the
farmers who gave the land to the M/s. Nizam Sugars are entitled to
get their land by virtue of section 100 and 101 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
It is contended that the Ananthapur is a drought prone area
and in view of the same the entire district is suffered
unemployment and as such the government has taken initiative to
develop the same by establishment of industries and as such the
Nizam Sugar Factory was established. Contrary to the aim and
objectives of the Government, the purpose of acquisition is being
defeated by the illegal and highhanded act of the respondent No. 9.
The Supreme Court in several matters pertaining to the violation of
the original use of the land acquired for industries, has held that
the land shall be put to original use or retained it to the original
land owners.
It is further contended that the official respondents Nos.1 to
8 are not entitled to grant permission to M/s. Sree Renuka Sugars
to sell the land to M/s. Rassai Properties without following statutes
it is nothing but gross abuse of official powers as held by the Apex
Court in "Uddar Gagan Propertieis Ltd., v. Sant Singh6",
wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
"It is so well settled that an action to be taken
in a particular manner as provided by statute,
must be taken, done or performed in the
manner prescribed or not at all".
Respondent No.11 also referred to the principle laid down by
the Privy Council in "Nazir v. King emperor7" wherein it is held
that "where power is given to do a certain thing in certain way, the
thing must be done in that way or not at all", but contrary to these
pronouncements, the property was sold by respondent No.10 to
the M/s. The Renuka Sugars Limited, requested to allow the writ
petition.
LAWS (SC) 2016 - 526
1936 AIR (PC) 253
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Respondent No.12 filed detailed counter reiterating the
allegations made in the counter filed by respondent No.10 while
admitting that respondent No.12 is a bonafide purchaser of the
property for valuable consideration and contended that the writ
petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law due to
absence of valid and substantial grounds. The petitioners have no
right, legal or statutory, much less subsisting right in the subject
property to seek writ of Mandamus. The petitioners are also guilty
of suppressio veri suggestio falsi as certain crucial/material legal
and factual aspects are suppressed and without mentioning the
ground realities, the petitioners approached this Court, requested
to dismiss the writ petition.
Petitioners filed reply to the counter filed by respondent No.4
reiterating the contentions urged in the petition. However, it is
specifically asserted that the Government has not issued any no
objection certificate to respondent No.9 for change of land use from
industrial to residential (real estate business) in the land
earmarked for industrial purpose. In view of the said fact, action of
respondent No.9 in conducting real estate business and the
inaction of the official respondents in maintain static silence and
not preventing respondent No.9 amounts to failure of discharge of
duty cast upon them. Hence, the writ of Mandamus can be issued,
requested to pass appropriate order.
Respondent No.9 filed additional counter reiterating the
contentions raised in the counter while denying the allegations
made in the counter filed by respondent No.11, who is
subsequently impleaded.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners
vehemently contended that the land was acquired for specific
purpose of establishing sugar factory and to provide employment to
the local villagers of Parigi and other villages. Accordingly,
respondent No.10 - the Nizam Sugars Limited established sugar
factory, but after 20 years, it was sold to respondent No.12 -
M/s.The Renuka Sugars Limited, who in turn sold the same to
respondent No.9 - Rassai Properties and Industries Limited and
now respondent No.9 converting the entire extent Ac.135.55 cents
of industrial land for residential purpose and carrying on real-
estate business, which is impermissible under law and on account
of such act of respondent Nos.12 and 9, the petitioners and other
villagers lost their livelihood i.e. cultivation and employment in the
industry. When the land was acquired for specific purpose i.e.
establishing sugar factory by respondent No.10, it cannot be used
for any other purpose except with the leave of the Government, but
no such permission was granted to respondent No.12 or
respondent No.9 for conversion of industrial land into residential
plots permitting respondent No.9 to carryon real estate business
laying layout obtaining permission from Panchayat, but such
action is in contravention of public purpose. Therefore, respondent
No.9 cannot be allowed to convert the land from industrial purpose
to residential purpose obtaining permission from concerned
authorities, requested to issue a direction to protect the interest of
the petitioners and to allow them to cultivate the land, which is in
occupation of the petitioners to eke out their livelihood even after
sale of the property.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Sri A.Satyaprasad, learned senior counsel, appearing for
respondent No.9 while narrating the facts contended that as
respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited became sick industry
and was in financial crunch, the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Industries and Commerce (SUGAR) Department addressed a Letter
No.656/SI/A2/94-9, dated 29.06.1996 to respondent No.10 -
Nizam Sugars Limited, authorizing the Board of Directors of
respondent No.10 -Nizam Sugars Limited to take steps to privatize
the sick unit at Hindupur with the private party and asked to
revive the sugar unit at this place. No private party came forward
to revive the sudhanagar sugar unit at Hindupur. The then
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce
(SUGAR) Department addressed a Letter No.656/Sug/A2/94-13,
dated 15.01.1997 to respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited,
authorizing the Board of Directors of Nizam Sugars Limited to relax
the condition of revival and to permit the private party to relocate
or shift the machinery of the Hindupur unit to make the bid
attractive. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries
and Commerce (SUG) Department addressed a Letter
No.656/sug/A2/94-20, dated 10.10.1997 to respondent No.10
Nizam Sugars Limited permitting the Chairman and Managing
Dirctor, Nizam Sugars Limited to go ahead with the sale
transaction of Sudhanagar unit of Hindupur with M/s. Renuka
Sugars Limited. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited transferred all the
plant and machinery along with employees to the Munoli Unit at
Belgaum, Karnataka State in the year 1999, as such the land was
sold to respondent No.9, which is now in possession and
enjoyment of the same.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
It is specifically contended that when once the property was
sold to respondent No.12 with absolute rights by respondent No.10
- the Nizam Sugars Limited on account of financial crunch,
respondent No.12 can deal with the property in terms of
Memorandum of Agreement and any condition imposed restricting
its use is invalid. However, respondent No.12 sold the property to
respondent No.9 without imposing any obligation on its part and
free from all encumbrances with absolute rights, as such
respondent No.9 is entitled to deal with the property as per his
convenience. Therefore, sale of the property either by dividing the
same into plots or otherwise by respondent No.9 after complying
with necessary formalities does not amount to denial of
employment to the petitioners since they were not under obligation
to provide employment to the petitioners, who parted with the
property in the land acquired about 40 years ago. Even otherwise
in view of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, any condition
repugnant to the interest created in the property is void. Therefore,
respondent No.9 is competent to deal with the property according
to its choice.
Respondent No.9 specifically contended that the petitioners
were never in possession and enjoyment of the property, the entire
property is in exclusive custody and control of respondent No.9,
obtained permission for conversion from the concerned authorities,
thereby the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the
writ petition. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court in "Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune
Municipal Transport and others" "C.Padma v. Deputy
Secretary" "Assam Industrial Development Corporation v.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Gillapukri Tea Company Limited and others" "Northern
Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and others"
(referred supra) and the judgment of this Court in "Madar Khan
gari shag Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh8". Based on the
law declared in the above judgments, the learned senior counsel
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.11 supported the
petitioners and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court
in "Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd vs Sant Singh & Ors (referred
supra), and the judgment of the Privy Council in "Nazir v. King
emperor" (referred supra), requested to pass appropriate order.
Learned counsel for respondent No.12 reiterated the
contentions urged in the counter affidavit and requested to dismiss
the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material
available on record, the points need to be answered by this Court
are as follows:
(1) Whether the action of respondent No.9 in converting
industrial land into residential plots, which was
initially allotted to respondent No.10 - the Nizam
Sugars Limited be declared as illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, contrary to law and fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India?
(2) Whether the official respondents are directed not to
permit respondent No.9 to divide the property into
house site plots and whether the respondents are
directed to reconvey the property to the petitioners?
2021 SCC OnLine AP 4191
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
P O I N T No.1:
The State Government acquired the property for
establishment of sugar factory known as Nizam Sugars Limited, at
Parigi Village, Anantapuram Mandal, which is a government
undertaking vide Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978. After
acquisition, compensation was awarded in favour of the land losers
for the land admeasuring Ac.143.56 cents and possession of the
same was handed over to Nizam Sugars Limited - Respondent
No.10 on 06.01.1982. Thereafter, Nizam Sugars Limited -
Respondent No.10 carried on its manufacturing process in the said
land for a period of 20 years which is not a disputed fact.
While so, in the year 1995, Nizam Sugars Limited -
Respondent No.10 itself sold land to an extent of Ac.10.26 cents in
Sy.No.294-3 to Central P2 Basic Seed Form Quarters, Parigi and
sold land to an extent of Ac.0.918 Acres in Sy.No.293 to the
Chairman, APSEB, Hyderabad vide Document No.1716/95. The
then Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce
(SUGAR) Department addressed a Letter No.656/SI/A2/94-9,
dated 29.06.1996 to the Nizam Sugars Limited, authorizing the
Board of Directors of respondent No.10 -Nizam Sugars Limited to
take steps to privatize the sick unit at Hindupur with the private
party being asked to revive the sugar unit at this place. As no
private party came forward to revive the Sudhanagar Sugar Unit at
Hindupur, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries
and Commerce (SUGAR) Department addressed Letter
No.656/Sug/A2/94-13, dated 15.01.1997 to respondent No.10 -
Nizam Sugars Limited, authorizing the Board of Directors of Nizam
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Sugars Limited to relax the condition of revival and to permit the
private party to relocate or shift the machinery of the Hindupur
unit to make the bid attractive. Later, the then Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (SUG) Department
addressed Letter No.656/sug/A2/94-20, dated 10.10.1997 to
respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited permitting the Chairman
and Managing Director, Nizam Sugars Limited to go ahead with the
sale transaction of Sudhanagar unit of Hindupur with M/s.
Renuka Sugars Limited and also to sign on the Memorandum of
Understanding with them.
Shree Renuka Sugars Limited was incorporated on
25.10.1995 at Belgam, Karnataka State, purchased the aforesaid
Sudhanagar Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of Nizam Sugars Limited
situated at Parigi Village and Mandal, near Hindupur, Ananthapur
District through Sale Deed dated 24.08.1998. Thus, all the land,
buildings, plant and machinery along with the employees were
taken over by M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited and became the owner.
M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited entered into Memorandum of
Agreement dated 30.09.1997 and agreed to continue employment
of the labourers/employees of Nizam Sugars Limited and also
agreed not to resort to retrenchment of any of the employees.
Subsequent to purchase of the Sudhanagar Sugar Unit by Shree
Renuka Sugars Limited, it transferred all the plant and machinery
along with employees to the Munoli Unit at Belgaum, Karnataka
State in the year 1999. Thus, only in pursuance of permission
granted by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and
Commerce (SUGAR) Department, Sudhanagar Sugar (Hindupur)
Unit of Nizam Sugars Limited was sold, since revival of the sugar
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
factory by any private company was not possible and only after
satisfying that a Government undertaking - Respondent No.10
became sick unit and unable to revive the unit, the entire unit was
permitted to be sold to private parties. Accordingly, Respondent
No.12 - M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited purchased Sudhanagar
Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of Nizam Sugars Limited, while agreeing to
engage all the labourers/employees of Sudhanagar Unit, Parigi,
Hindupur.
Rythu Samkshema Sangham, Hindupur filed W.P.No.8168 of
1997 challenging the Sale Notification dated 03.03.1997 in respect
of Sudhanagar Sugar Unit (Hindupur) Ananthpur District of the
Nizam Sugars Limited. The said writ petition was dismissed by the
High Court holding that it is a policy matter of the Government
whether to retain a Unit as a Public Sector or Privatize it, as the
unit became a sick unit. Later, the order was challenged in
W.A.No.887 of 1997 and it became final on 18.08.1997, since no
Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court.
Therefore, privatization of the unit at Sudhanagar by the
Government, permitting to sell the same to any private company by
the Government letters referred above has attained finality and
such sale cannot be reopened in the present writ petition.
When the entire land, buildings, plant and machinery along
with the employees were sold to Shree Renuka Sugars Limited -
Respondent No.12 by Respondent No.10, in view of the permission
granted by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and
Commerce (SUGAR) Department, the petitioners cannot re-agitate
about sale of the Sudhanagar Sugar Unit, which attained finality in
view of the orders in W.P.No.8168 of 1997 and W.A.No.887 of
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
1997. At this stage, it is relevant to advert Condition No.5 of the
Sale Deed dated 24.08.1998, which reads as follows:
"5. The Vendor has in the employment 473
employees for operations of the property as on
30.09.1997 of which 15 employees are under the
Managerial and Officer cadre including one trainee
and the remaining 458 employees, both in
permanent and seasonal categories (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "said Labour"); the list
of the said labour as on 30.09.1997 is enclosed.
AND WHEREAS the Vendor intended to dispose off
the property by means of sale and also intended to
ensure that the said labour be continued to be
employed by the Vendee on the terms and
conditions that are at least as favourable as on the
date of the said agreement including those
applicable to salaries, perquisites, retirement and
superannuation benefits;"
Thus, as per Condition No.5 of the Sale Deed dated
24.08.1998, Respondent No.12 agreed to continue the 473 labour
and employees, who are in employment. Accordingly, Respondent
No.12 - M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited transferred all the plant and
machinery along with employees to the Munoli Unit at Belgaum,
Karnataka State in the year 1999. This fact is not disputed by the
petitioners. However, execution of Sale Deed dated 24.08.1998 and
the terms and conditions incorporated therein are also not in
controversy. As per the terms and conditions, the entire
Sudhanagar Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of Nizam Sugars Limited was
sold to Rs.5-00 crores paid by the vendee to the vendor as full
consideration and receipt of the same was acknowledged, subject
to other conditions contained therein. Thus, the property was
transferred to M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited - Respondent No.12
with absolute rights by Respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited.
Therefore, M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited - Respondent No.12
became absolute owner of Sudhanagar Sugar Unit, including all
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
land, machinery, buildings, and subject to terms and conditions
contained about the employees. When the property is transferred
with absolute rights subject to conditions in the sale deed,
Respondent No.12 became absolute owner of the property and
there is no restriction on enjoyment of the property even at the
time when the land was sold to Respondent No.12 - Shree Renuka
Sugars by Respondent No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited or
permission granted by the State for sale of the unit. In the absence
of any condition or restraint against use of property in any specific
mode/manner, Respondent No.12 can enjoy the property according
to it‟s wish and will and the petitioners have no right to insist
Respondent No.9 or 10 or 12 for return of the land when they have
parted with the land in the land acquisition proceedings vide
Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978 and the petitioners ceased to
be the owners of the land. In Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978,
there was no condition to provide employment or re-convey
property to these petitioners. Thus, on the date of Award and
consequent upon delivery of land admeasuring Ac.143.56 cents
and handing over possession of the same by Nizam Sugars Limited
- Respondent No.10 on 06.01.1982 by the Land Acquisition Officer,
the petitioners ceased to be the owners of the land acquired under
Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978.
It is the contention of the petitioners that, when the land was
acquired for public purpose i.e., for establishment of industry, that
should be utilized only for the said purpose of establishment of
industry to provide employment to the locals of Parigi Village and
other surrounding areas.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
No doubt, when the land was acquired for public purpose, it
should be utilized for such purpose. Accordingly, Respondent
No.10 - Nizam Sugars Limited established Sugar Factory unit
employing 473 employees in different cadres and had run the
factory successfully for 20 years. But, later, it became sick unit.
On the report submitted by the Sub-Committee, the State
Government decided that it is impossible to revive the Unit and
permitted the Board of Directors of Nizam Sugars Limited to sell
the same to any private persons who agreed to revive the industry.
Since nobody came forward to revive the unit, the State again
addressed letter and permitted to sell the same without condition
of revival, as narrated in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, the
property was put to public use i.e. for establishment of industry
and only after execution of Sale Deed dated 24.08.1998, the land
was transferred since Sudhanagar Sugar (Hindupur) Unit of Nizam
Sugars Limited itself became sick. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioners is that, when the property was not put to public
purpose, it shall be returned to the land owners. Whereas, the
contention of the respondents that, when once the land owners
parted with the property and received compensation, they ceased
to be the owners and the property vested on the Government, free
from all encumbrances who in-turn allotted the same to
Respondent No.10- Nizam Sugars Limited and Respondent No.10
paid compensation. Keeping in view the purpose for which the land
was acquired, Sudhanagar Sugar Unit was continued its
production for 20 years, subsequently became sick. Hence, the
petitioners have no right as on date of filing the writ petition to
claim right in the land of Respondent No.10 which was transferred
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
to Respondent No.12 and re-conveyance of land to the petitioners
does not arise. As the petitioners received compensation and other
benefits under Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978, they lost their
right in the immovable property and on transfer to Respondent
No.10, Respondent No.10 became absolute owner of the property
and thereby, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right in
the property.
Similar question came up before the Apex Court in
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal
Transport and others (referred supra). In Paragraph No.22 of the
judgment, the Supreme Court summarized the law that, once the
land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It
is not the concern of the land owner as to how his land is used and
whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was
acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata
once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get
compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot
claim the right or restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever.
In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgment referred supra, the petitioners who became persona non
grata are disentitled to claim reversion of the land to vest on them
and applying the principle laid down in the above judgment,
contention of the petitioners is held meritless.
In C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary (referred supra), the
Division Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the issue
about divesting the property to the land owners held that, if the
acquired land having vested in the State and compensation is paid
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
to the claimant, thereafter the claimants are not entitled to
restitution of possession on the ground that either original public
purpose has ceased to be in operation or the land could not be
used for any other purpose. The Apex Court finally concluded that,
when once the land is vested on the Government which is free from
all encumbrances, failure to put the land to particular use is not a
ground to divest the property on the land owners.
In Assam Industrial Development Corporation v.
Gillapukri Tea Company Limited and others (referred supra),
the Full Bench of the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down
in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal9 and held that,
once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely
with the State and the title of the landowner ceases.
In similar situation, in Madar Khan gari Shag Khan v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), this Court after
considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Northern
Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors10,
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra11,
C. Padma and Ors., v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu and Ors (referred supra), Kapila Majhi v. State12,
concluded that, since the land is already vested on the
Government, though not utilized for the purpose for which it was
acquired, the question of return of land does not arise. This Court
also considered the principle laid down by the Constitutional
Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v.
(2020) 8 SCC 129
10 (2003) 1 SCC 335
11 (1996) 6 SCC 405
12 2019 SCC Online Ori 181
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Manoharlal (referred supra) and rejected a similar claim made by
the petitioners therein.
In view of the principles, the law is well settled that, when
once the property is vested on the State on acquisition and the
land owners received compensation for the land acquired, they
ceased to be the owners of the land and the State becomes the
owner of the property. In the instant case, land was acquired vide
Award No.1/78-79 dated 22.04.1978 on payment of compensation
to the land owners i.e. the petitioners and others, thereby the
petitioners ceased to be the owners and they have no right
whatsoever. Thus, the State became absolute owner of the
property, who in-turn allotted the same to Respondent No.10 for
establishment of sugar industry in the land acquired. Therefore,
applying the principles laid down in the above judgments, the
claim of the petitioners shall be rejected, as they are not entitled to
claim re-vesting or reversion of the property they claimed to be the
owners of the property.
The Apex Court considered about re-vesting of property to
the land owners upon failure to put the land to use in M/s Royal
Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and
others13. In the facts of the above judgment, the property was
acquired for industrial purpose and notification was issued under
Section 4(1) and declared under Section 6(1) that the property is
required for public purpose, agreements were entered into even
before possession was taken to part with substantial portion of the
land. Where object of providing land to a private individuals, if
acquisition proceedings are reported to or power of eminent
13 (2011) 10 SCC 608
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
domain comes to be exercised, it would nothing more than fraud
on power. Therefore, taking into consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, as the private individual entered into
agreement with third parties, the Supreme Court directed to
re-deliver the property to the land owners, as it is a fraudulent
acquisition.
In Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd vs Sant Singh & Ors
(referred supra) the question before the Supreme Court was
whether the power of the State to acquire land for a public purpose
has been used to facilitate transfer of title of the land of original
owners to a private builder to advance the business interest of the
said builder which is not legally permissible and whether the
acquisition of land is entirely or partly for a private company
without following the statutory procedure for the said purpose.
Such question was dealt seriously by the Apex Court and issued
certain guidelines while holding that, the "owner of land has
guarantee against being deprived of his rights except under a valid
law for compelling needs of the society and not otherwise. The
commercial use of land can certainly be rewarding to an individual.
Initiation of acquisition for public purpose may deprive the owner
of valuable land but it cannot permit another person who may be
able to get permission to develop colony to take over the said land.
If the law allows the State to take land for housing needs, the State
itself has to keep the title or dispose of land consistent with
Article 14 of the Constitution after completion of acquisition.
If after initiation of acquisition, process is not to be completed,
land must revert back to owner on the date of Section 4
notification under the Land Acquisition Act and not to anyone else
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
directly or indirectly." It was further held that "the power to release
land from acquisition has to be exercised consistent with the
doctrine of public trust and not arbitrarily."
But, the principles laid down in M/s Royal Orchid Hotels
Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others and
Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd vs Sant Singh & Ors (referred
supra), have no application to the present facts of the case, for the
reason that, after acquisition of the property, sugar factory was
established and it was in running condition for 20 years, but
became sick due to financial crunch. Since Nizam Sugars Limited
is a State Government undertaking, the State itself decided to
privatize and sell the same to private individuals and granted
permission to issue a direction to sell the property, as narrated in
the earlier paragraphs. Hence, the principle laid down in the above
two judgments needs no consideration.
The petitioners are claiming Writ of Mandamus. To claim
writ of mandamus, the petitioner must establish his existing legally
enforceable right, it‟s infringement or invasion or infraction.
Writ of mandamus is discretionary in nature and such power
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
be exercised only in certain circumstances. At best, this Court
cannot decide the legality of the order. Yet issuance of Writ of
Mandamus is purely discretionary and the same cannot be issued
as a matter of course.
In "State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmi Kutty14", the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of
14 1986 (4) SCC 632
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must
be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a
mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a
duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the
Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by
public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has
existing legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of
a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a
writ of Mandamus.
Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a
person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then
he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is
failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the
Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series
of decisions.
In "State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors.15"
the Supreme Court held as follows:
"..........Under the Constitution a mandamus can
be issued by the court when the applicant
establishes that he has a legal right to the
performance of legal duty by the party against
whom the mandamus is sought and the said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition."
(Emphasis supplied)
In "Union of India v. S.B. Vohra16" the Supreme Court
considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of
mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must
establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus
15 (1996) 9 SCC 309
16 (2004) 2 SCC 150
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform,
but has failed and/or neglected to do so.
In "Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain17" the
Supreme Court held thus:
"The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be
issued have been stated as under in The Law of
Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G.
Ferris, Jr.:
Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly
prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of
general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty,
directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court
within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some
particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to
their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said
that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the
proper court, commanding the official or board to which it
is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which
the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to
have performed.
Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound
judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a
plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently
existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who
refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no
other adequate and specific legal remedy and without
which there would be a failure of justice. The chief
function of the writ is to compel the performance of public
duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and
inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions
within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however,
that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as
well for the enforcement of a common law duty.
Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance
unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the
court, subject always to the well settled principles which
have been established by the courts. An action in
mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary
litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not
denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment
pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is
classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely
controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ
the court may, and should, look to the larger public
interest which may be concerned-an interest which private
litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends.
The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and
with due regard to the consequences which will result. It
is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the
surrounding facts and circumstances."
(Emphasis supplied)
17 (2008) 2 SCC 280
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been
summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows:
"Mandamus may issue to compel the person or
official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to
proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there
is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall
be performed mandamus will not lie to control or
review the exercise of the discretion of any board,
tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is
either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly
appears that there has been an abuse of discretion
on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer,
and in accordance with this rule mandamus may
not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to
be exercised in any particular way. This principle
applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it
may be made to appear what the decision ought to
be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or,
however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be,
and although there may be no other method of
review or correction provided by law. The discretion
must be exercised according to the established rule
where the action complained has been arbitrary or
capricious, or based on personal, selfish or
fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on
total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to
an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a
refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the
parties where so required, or to entertain any proper
question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or
where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner
entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and
there are other methods which it adopted, would be
effective"
(emphasis supplied)
In the present case, the petitioners have no interest or
existing legally enforceable right in the land, thereby, question of
infringement or invasion or infraction of their legally enforceable
right does not arise. In such case, this Court cannot exercise any
discretion to issue writ of mandamus while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
petitioners who are the erstwhile owners before acquisition of the
land are disentitled to claim writ of mandamus.
As discussed above, the petitioners being the erstwhile
owners of the land, had no subsisting or existing legally
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
enforceable right in the property and question of infringement or
invasion or infraction of their legally enforceable right does not
arise as on the date of execution of sale deed. That apart, on the
question of privatization of Respondent No.10, which is subject
matter of W.P.No.8168 of 1997 and W.A.No.887 of 1997, the
petitioners were unsuccessful throughout. Therefore, I find that the
petitioners did not possess any existing legally enforceable right in
the property and consequently the question of infringement or
invasion of their legal right does not arise, thereby the petitioners
are disentitled to claim writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the point is
answered against the petitioners and in favour of Respondent Nos.
9,10 & 12.
P O I N T No.2:
The petitioners also sought a direction against the official
respondents not to convert the land from industrial to residential
by Respondent No.9 to lay layouts and sell them. Respondent No.9
contended that, when Sudhanagar Sugar Unit was sold without
any conditions to M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited, shifted the
machinery and employees to Belgaum Unit and later sold the
property to Respondent No.9 without any condition about
utilization of the property, thereby the petitioners are entitled to
enjoy the property as per their choice and the Court cannot impose
any restriction on the official respondents or against Respondent
No.9 to deal with the property as per the choice of Respondent
No.9, in the absence of any specific condition in the sale deed.
Respondent No.8 explained about nature of land, acquisition
of land by the Government and sale of the property, so also
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
disposal of the factory by Respondent No.10 to Respondent No.12
and later purchase of the land by Respondent No.9. The specific
contention of Respondent No.9 is that, Respondent No.9 acquired
absolute right in the property having purchased total extent of land
admeasuring an extent of Ac.135.55 cents from Respondent No.12
under registered sale deed and that a permission is obtained from
the authorities concerned for conversion i.e laying lay out.
Notwithstanding the permission obtained, as contended by
Respondent No.9, the Court has to examine whether the official
respondents be restrained from granting permission for conversion
of land from industrial to residential.
The official respondents are discharging their public duties
and if Respondent No.9 complied all the required formalities, the
authorities concerned are bound to grant permission, since
Respondent No.9 acquired absolute title to the property without
any restriction on utilization of the land. When once the property is
transferred to Respondent No.9 with absolute rights, any condition
imposed restricting utilization of land is void under Section 11 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, assuming that there
is any condition on utilization of the land, such condition is void
and that will not come in the way to obtain permission from the
concerned authorities and the concerned authorities are bound to
grant permission if Respondent No.9 complied the requisite
formalities under the Act for conversion of land from industrial to
residential.
In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.9,
Respondent No.9 asserted that the petitioners were never in
possession and enjoyment of the property and that, Respondent
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
No.9 alone is in exclusive possession of the property. Though the
petitioners contended that the property was acquired for specific
purpose of establishing unit of Respondent No.10, it can be utilized
for any other purpose, as held by the Apex Court in catena of
perspective pronouncements referred above. But, here, it is
different situation where sugar unit was established providing
employment opportunities to 473 employees and the sugar factory
had run for 20 years. Thereafter, it became sick industry. It is not
the case of anybody that no industry was established and the land
was being utilized for the purpose other than the purpose for
which it was acquired as in the case of M/s Royal Orchid Hotels
Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others and
Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd vs Sant Singh & Ors (referred
supra). In fact, this Court considered the principle in the earlier
paragraphs and distinguished the principle laid down in those two
judgments and declined to apply the same principle to the present
facts of the case, as the facts are different.
The prayer of the petitioners is to restrain the official
respondents from granting permission to convert the land from
industrial to residential. But, this Court cannot issue such
direction restraining the official respondents from discharging their
public duties. At best, this Court may issue direction to deal with
such an issue in accordance with law to dispose of such
applications, if any, made by Respondent No.9 for grant of
permission for conversion of land from industrial to residential.
But, here, the petitioners sought a direction totally to restrain the
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
official respondents from granting permission to convert the land
from industrial to residential, which is impermissible under law.
The major contention urged before this Court is that, the
petitioners lost their livelihood as they were totally depending upon
agriculture. When the industry acquired the property and provided
employment to them, later sold the property to Respondent No.12,
who in-turn sold the same to Respondent No.9, they lost their
employment also, thereby; they sought restoration of possession of
their land. It is an undisputed fact that, sale deed was executed by
Respondent No.10 in favour of Respondent No.12 and Condition
No.5 in the sale deed is extracted in the earlier paragraphs.
According to it, none of the employees be retrenched and
Respondent No.12 shall continue to engage their services in the
industry. In view of the above condition, all the employees 473 in
number were transferred to Manoali unit at Belgaum of
Respondent No.12. It is not the case of the petitioners that, either
of the employees was retrenched from service or disengaged from
the service. Even otherwise, the Respondent No.10 Unit was
opened in 1998 and services of 473 employees were serving for 20
years. But, as on the date of sale of Sudhanagar Unit, total
employees in the unit were 473 were transferred/shifted to Manoali
unit, Belgaum of Respondent No.12. As on date, most of the
employees might have retired on attaining the age of
superannuation and question of again engaging their services in
Respondent No.12 Unit at Belgaum does not arise on account of
their superannuation, thereby, the question of loss of employment
on account of sale of property to Respondent No.9 by Respondent
No.12 is nothing but a lame excuse to prevent Respondent No.9 to
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
deal with the property as per its wish. Apart from that, the
petitioners already received compensation i.e consideration for
acquisition of property by the Government for allotting the same to
Respondent No.10. When the property was acquired and
compensation was paid, the petitioners ceased to be the owners, as
discussed in the earlier paragraphs and the land had vested on the
State free from all encumbrances as per the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby, the petitioners cannot claim
reversion or re-allotment of the property to them on account of
failure to use the property after 40 years from the date of
acquisition. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners had no right to
claim writ of mandamus, as discussed above and the direction as
sought for by them cannot be granted by this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, as the property was already parted by these petitioners and
changed three hands during 40 years of period, in view of the
permission granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Industries and Commerce (SUGAR) Department. Hence, I find no
ground to issue any direction as sought for by these petitioners
against the official respondents not to grant any permission for
conversion of land from industrial to residential and to prevent
Respondent No.9 to get the approval of layouts from concerned
authorities and sell the property to various persons, as it amounts
to restraining the authorities from discharging their public duty,
being public officers, which is impermissible under law, as stated
supra.
Respondent No.11 being a public spirited person came on
record, as the matter involved is public interest, such public
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
interest litigation cannot be decided in ordinary writ proceedings.
Respondent No.11 may file public interest litigation before this
Court which will be dealt by a Division Bench. However, in the
guise of public interest, Respondent No.11 came on record and
filed several documents. To support his contention, learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.252 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No.184 of
2021, where, in the said judgment, the Division Bench observed
there is an element of public interest, though an individual interest
is sought to be canvassed in W.P.No.6033 of 2021. In Paragraph
No.16, Respondent No.11 was directed to file affidavit on or before
30.09.2021 in W.P.No.6033 of 2021, raising the issues
consequently. Finally, W.A.No.252 of 2021 was disposed of along
with W.P. (PIL) No.184 of 2021, conclusion in Paragraph No.16 is
as follows:
"16. In the attending facts and circumstances, when
the writ petition is pending consideration in respect of
the land in question before the learned single Judge,
it will not be advisable to entertain the Public Interest
Litigation. Having said that, we are also conscious of
the fact that certain aspects relating to public interest
are raised in this petition, which cannot be
overlooked. The learned single Judge has also noted
that there are larger issues, including involvement of
public interest in the writ petition. In that
circumstance, we are of the opinion that ends of
justice will be sub-served if we permit the petitioner
in W.P (PIL) No.184 of 2021 to be impleaded as
respondent No.11 in W.P.No.6033 of 2021, so as to
enable him to put forth the issues sought to be raised
by him. While impleading him as respondent No.11 in
the writ petition, we provide that he will invariably
file his affidavit on or before 30.09.2021, failing
which, no prayer for extension of time to file an
affidavit will be entertained."
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Pursuant to the above direction, affidavit is filed before this
Court raising several contentions, explaining the process of
acquisition, sale of property to M/s. Renuka Sugars - Respondent
No.12 and then to Respondent No.9 - Rasaai Properties, while
asserting that the State Government owned 41% share in the
factory and the remaining share was held by Delta Sugars. The
Nizam Sugar Factory has been laid-off by the Government in the
year 2015, mentioning that they will completely hand over the
factory to the Government. But, no action has been taken on the
factory and the employees were not paid salaries for several years.
Thereafter, the said industry was privatized whereunder it was
mentioned that the State Government has a share of 49% and the
Nizam Sugar Factory has 51% of the share. He also asserted that
on account of permission to sell the property, the very purpose of
allotment was defeated.
The contentions raised by Respondent No.11 in the separate
counter affidavit filed by him, as directed in the writ appeal is
nothing but questioning of privatization of the unit and sale of the
property by Respondent No.10 to Respondent No.12 and thereafter,
to Respondent No.9. In fact, privatization was questioned in
W.P.No.8168 of 1997 which ended in dismissal and the same was
confirmed in W.A.No.887 of 1997, such an issue cannot be
re-agitated before the learned single Judge of this Court, which has
attained finality, since no Special Leave Petition was preferred
against an order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.887 of 1997. So
far as defeating the purpose of acquisition is concerned, this Court
has already discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, this
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Court is not required to reiterate the same again based on the
allegations made in the affidavit filed by Respondent No.11.
Along with the counter affidavit, Respondent No.11 placed on
record, G.O.Rt.No.542 Industries and Commerce (IR) Department,
dated 17.06.1977. As per the Government Order, the State
Government incurred an expenditure of Rs.100/- towards the
State Government contribution for payment of compensation in
respect of the land notified in G.O.Rt.No.495 Industries and
Commerce Department dated 08.06.1977, for establishment of
Sugar Factory at Parigi and the Director of Industries is requested
to issue necessary authorization to the Collector, Anantapur for
drawing the above amount and the said expenditure shall be
debited to 520 Capital outlay on Industrial Research and
Development. M.H.15-Other expenditure - Schemes included in
the fifth five year plan. S.H (03) - Establishment of Industrial
Development Areas - Voted. Thus, the direction, at best is useful to
collect Rs.100/- which represent the share of the Government in
the acquired land. Therefore, this document is of no help to the
petitioners or Respondent No.11.
Respondent No.11 also placed on record copy of the award
evidencing acquisition of the land which is not in dispute.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to delve upon such an issue of
acquisition. Certain representations were made by the ryoths of the
village seeking a direction to re-allot the land to them. On the basis
of such request, the Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal addressed a letter to
the Sub-Collector requesting to grant permission to take
possession of Ac.7-39 cents of Government land for utilization of
public purpose which was resumed by the Government for
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
establishment of Nizam Sugars Factory over which the Beneficent
Knowledge Park has not got any right or document. In the
penultimate page of the Proceedings Rc.No.209/2020.B dated
12.09.2020, it is observed as follows:
"The entire land purchased 135.556 acres of patta land and
also Government land which was resumed for establishment of
Nizam Sugar Factory is under the possession of Beneficent
Knowledge Park (previously known as Rassai Properties and
Industries Limited). At present they are cleaning the bushes and
jungles land in Sy.No.358-1 extent Ac.19-23 cents and also in
Sy.No.368-1 extent Ac.9-23 cents.
It is submitted that the CPM Party leades and YSR CP
Parliamentary Secretary have given representation that the
Beneficent Knowledge Park forming commercial House lay out
and enclosed a H.S Lay out. In Sy.No.368-1A, 1B and 1C which
were acquired for Nizam Sugar Factory and transacted and sold
to the Beneficent Knowledge Park. There is Government land
adjoining the lay out land in Sy.No.368-2, 4 extent Ac.3-65 cents
which was resumed to Governmetn and allotted to the Nizam
Sugar Factory."
From the Proceedings Rc.No.209/2020.B dated 12.09.2020
addressed by the Tahsildar, Parigi to Sub-Collector, Penugonda, it
is not known whether the Sub-Collector, Penugonda permitted to
take possession any part of the land. In the absence of any
permission granted, this Court cannot issue any direction as
claimed by Respondent No.11.
Similarly, an Endorsement in Rc.No.199/B/2020 dated
18.09.2020 was issued by the Tahsildar, Parigi to M. Peddanna,
s/o Chinna Muthyalappa, Thimmapuram, Penukonda Mandal,
informing that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.10-26 cents
in Sy.No.293 and Ac.15-02 cents in Sy.No.294-3, totalling to an
extent of Ac.25-28 cents in Parigi Mandal belongs to Endowment
Deparmtnet and that, the Tahsildar is suspecting that some people
have encroached part of land illegally and laying plots for sale and
proposing to take appropriate action after conducting survey. After
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
verifying the records of acquisition proceedings of Nizam Sugar
Factory, those land belong to Endowment Deparmtnet. But the
land acquired by the Sub-Collector, Penukonda in Award No.1/78-
79 dated 22.04.1978 and vide R.C.K/1663/77 dated 06.01.1982.
This document is also will not come to the rescue of Respondent
No.11 to grant any relief.
Some of the villages made a representation dated 26.10.2020
to the District collector with a request to provide certain
information. But, it is not known whether any information was
furnished by them. However, the Tahsildar, Parigi addressed
another letter to the Sub-Collector, Penukonda vide
Rc.No.208/A/2020 dated 19.12.2020. At the end of the letter, for
one reason or the other, it is stated that, over an extent of Ac.7-39
cents, M/s. Rassai Properties and Industries Limited, Mumbai has
no title to the property and placed on record other documents in
support of his argument. But, none of the documents, more
particularly, inter- departmental correspondence is of no use.
Respondent No.11 also placed on record Memorandum of
Agreement dated 30.09.1997 entered between Respondent Nos.10
& 12, but, it will be of no help to these petitioners or Respondent
No.11. Paragraph No.10 of the Memorandum of Agreement, dealt
with „Labour‟ and said clause is extracted hereunder for better
appreciation of the case.
"10. SRSL will not resort to retrenchment of any of the employees at
SSU and will retain the services of all the existing employees of
SSU on terms and conditions that are at least as favourable as on
the date of this MOA including those applicable to salaries,
perquisites, retirement and superannuation benefits.
11. However, SRSL is permitted to retrain and redeploy employees
in the interests of its productive efficiency or to enter into any
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "VRS") in
accordance with the applicable labour and other laws. The terms of
VRS shall not be less than that offered by NS; as stated in
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
Annexure III thereto, and shall be entirely funded by RSL other
than as specified in Clause 14 of this MOA.
12. The date for VRS payments by SRBL and NSL will be the date
of registration of Sale Deed.
13. VRS shall also be open to all permanent workers (including
those workers employed on a seasonal basis) irrespective of age
and duration of service. VRS shall not cover the employees of SSU
in the Managerial and Officer cadre. However, SRSL shall offer to
employ these employees on atleast the same terms of employment
as with NSL."
Even according to the above clauses, at best, the employees
or labourers shall not be retrenched and they shall be redeployed
by Shree Renuka Sugars Limited. Permission was also given to
enter into any Voluntary Retirement Scheme in accordance with
the Labour and other laws. VRS was also open to all the
permanent and workers on a seasonal basis, irrespective of age
and duration of service. It was mentioned that VRS shall not cover
the employees of Sudhanagar Sugar Unit in the Mangerial and
officer cadre. However, M/s. Renuka Sugars Limited shall offer to
employ these employees on atleast the same terms of employment
as with Nizam Sugars Limited. Though Clauses 10, 11, 12 & 13
deal with employees, it is not the case of any of the petitioners that
their services were terminated without following Clauses 10, 11, 12
& 13 of Memorandum of Agreement dated 30.09.1997. Therefore,
these documents are of no help to the petitioners and Respondent
No.11.
Curiously, learned counsel for Respondent No.11 placed on
record G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment. I) Department, dated
14.09.2012, which deals with Government Land Allotment Policy.
But, this Government Land Allotment Policy is irrelevant for
deciding the issue, as it has no application to the present facts of
the case. Hence, the contention of Respondent No.11 raised in
support of the petitioners is hereby rejected.
MSM,J
WP_6033_2021
In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no ground to
restrain respondent No.9 to lay plots and to re-convey the schedule
land to the petitioners.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
21.02.2022
Ksp/SP
