Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.L.V.N. Murthy Murthy Yadav, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
18 & 19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No. WP(PIL).Nos.160 & 191 of 2022
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl. DATE OFFICE
ORDER
No NOTE
11. 06.12.2023 Heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for Mr. Ponnada Sree Vyas,
learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(PIL).No.160
of 2022 and Mr. T. Venu Gopal, learned counsel for
the petitioner in WP(PIL).No.191 of 2022 and Mr. N.
Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
No.12 in WP(PIL).No.160 of 2022.
Learned Government Pleader for Assignment,
learned Government Pleader for Registration and
Stamps, Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal
Corporation, Mr. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Metropolitan
Region Development Authority, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned
Government Pleader for Revenue are present.
Mr. Doddala Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel for
the applicant in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP(PIL).No.191
of 2022 is also present.
The controversy in the present PILs is with
regard to the usage of the land allotted to a company
WP(PIL).Nos.160 & 191 of 2022
- respondent No.12 in WP(PIL).No.160 of 2022.
The land measuring approximately Ac.12.00
cents situate in Endada Village of Visakhapatnam
District was sold to the said respondent No.12 for
constructing an old age home and an orphanage.
The allegation is that the said plot of land is
being used for purposes other than the one which
was the basis for such an allotment. In this regard,
the District Collector had in the first round of
litigation issued a notice to respondent No.12 which
led to the order of cancellation of the sale deed
executed in favour of the said respondent. However,
this became a subject matter of challenge in an
earlier round of litigation when the writ petition filed
by respondent No.12 was allowed. In appeal, the
judgment and order passed by the learned single
Judge was modified to the extent that the issues with
regard to whether there could be a clog on a property
post the execution of a sale deed was left upon to be
decided in appropriate proceedings.
Insofar as the notice issued by the District
Collector and the consequent order of cancellation
order of allotment are concerned, the Division Bench
held that the impugned order dated 18.08.2015
contained reasons for cancellation of allotment
which were not reflected in the earlier show cause
notice, dated 21.06.2015 and, therefore, set aside
WP(PIL).Nos.160 & 191 of 2022
the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 on the
grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
However, liberty was granted to the respondent
authorities to take action afresh in accordance with
law. It is also apt to mention here that the Division
Bench had kept open the issue as to whether the
provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895 would
prevail over Section 11 of the Transfer of Property
Act or not.
Be that as it may, it appears that pursuant to
the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, the
second show cause notice came to be issued by the
District Collector, Visakhapatnam in November,
2022, which has since been responded to by
respondent No.12.
It appears that a Government Order bearing
No.57 was issued by the Government authorizing the
District Collectors to cancel the allotments in cases
where the conditions of allotment had been violated.
Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel,
would submit that the delegation of powers by the
Government to the District Collector might give rise
to a further litigation subsequently on the issue that
the Government could not have delegated its decision
making power to the District Collector inasmuch as
the order of allotment had been made by the
Government itself.
WP(PIL).Nos.160 & 191 of 2022
We see some reason in the argument advanced
by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
We have been told that the land in question is
quite valuable being in the heart of Visakhapatnam
District and may run into couple of hundred crores.
Considering the nature of stakes involved, it
would be advisable for the Government to take a
decision at its own level after considering all the
aspects.
Be that as it may, let an appropriate decision be
taken based upon the show cause notice issued by
the District Collector in November, 2022, and the
reply submitted by respondent No.12 thereto,
preferably within a period of eight weeks.
It has been brought to our notice that third
party interests are being created in the property in
question. One of the applicant who seeks
impleadment in WP(PIL).No.191 of 2022 is a person
who has purchased by an agreement of sale a plot
measuring 600 square yards for an amount of
Rs.2.95 Crores. The amount already paid to
respondent No.12 is Rs.1.5 Crores.
In order to protect the interest of investors and
prevent multiplication of litigation, we deem it
appropriate that respondent No.12 in
WP(PIL).No.160 of 2022 be restrained from creating
WP(PIL).Nos.160 & 191 of 2022
any third party interest in the land or the properties
constructed thereupon, till such time as the decision
is taken by the Government in that regard.
Any construction raised on the plot in question
will be entirely at the risk and cost of respondent
No.12 in WP(PIL).No.160 of 2022.
List on 31.01.2024.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Vjl
