Telangana High Court

M/S. Balaji Administrative ... vs The State Of Telangana., on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

       WRIT PETITION NOs.22601 AND 30993 OF 2014,
                   32403 OF 2015, 8376 OF 2018
              AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.678 OF 2015

COMMON ORDER:

      All these batch of Writ Petitions pertain to the very same

subject property and are filed at different stages on different

cause of actions. As the facts in issue are common for all the

Writ Petitions, the same are clubbed and heard together and

they are, accordingly, disposed of by this common order.

2.    Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.S.Prasad,

learned Advocate General for the respondents. As the parties to

all the Writ Petitions are almost same, they are referred as per

the array of cause title in W.P.No.22601 of 2014 for

convenience.

3. The brief facts that are undisputed and relevant for

disposal of these Writ Petitions are as under:

The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a

policy decision to encourage the functioning of newspaper

concerns and educational institutions in the State and in the

said process, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh issued 2 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch G.O.Ms.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 dated 31.10.1994 allotting

the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 gts each in Survey No.403

correlated to T.S.No.2, Block-F, Ward-9 and T.S.No.9, Block-F of

Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, on

payment of land value at the rate of Rs.200/- per square yard in

favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein, for the purpose of

establishing newspaper concerned. Along with the petitioners,

two other institutions, namely M/s. DOT Publishers and

M/s.Roots Educational Society Private Limited were also allotted

equal extent of land for the purpose of establishing newspaper

concern and a school respectively. The petitioners herein, in

terms of the price fixed under the above G.Os., have deposited

an amount of Rs.19,36,000/- each with the respondents on

29.11.1994. However, the possession of the subject land was

not handed over to the petitioners herein but on the contrary,

the possession was handed over to the other two institutions i.e.

M/s. DOT Publishers and Roots Educational Society Private

Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the other two entities"),

though the said two entities have not paid the amounts by that

date. At that stage, having been aggrieved by the action of the

respondent-State in not handing over the possession of the

respective allotted land to the petitioners herein, the petitioners 3 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch filed W.P.Nos.3376, 3384 and 4637 of 1996 and the said Writ

Petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court

by order, dated 01.04.1998 and the Writ Appeals filed

thereagainst vide W.A.Nos.1715, 1716 and 1720 of 1998 by the

State were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an

order, dated 08.05.2001. During the pendency of the said Writ

Appeals, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.38 Revenue

(Assignment-III) Department dated 16.01.2001 cancelling the

three G.Os. through which the allotment was made in favour of

the petitioners herein on the ground that the area in question

was earmarked for residential purpose and that the price

stipulated in the respective G.Os. was ridiculously low.

Thereupon, Contempt Case Nos.114, 115 and 116 of 2001 were

filed against the action of the respondents in issuing

G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 16.01.2001. The learned Division Bench,

while disposing of the Writ Appeals and Contempt Cases

cancelled G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 16.01.2001 and confirmed the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge and closed the

Contempt Cases. Aggrieved by the orders, dated 08.05.2001

passed by the learned Division Bench, the respondent-State

filed Civil Appeal Nos.7152 to 7157 of 2002 and the said Civil

Appeals came to be dismissed by an order dated 01.11.2002 4 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch and all the contentions raised by the respondent-State, be it

with regard to the value of the land, the nature of the land,

being an area earmarked for residential area etc., were rejected

by the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration the fact

that the allotment of land made in favour of the other two

entities are not cancelled and they were allowed to set up the

printing press and school respectively by permitting conversion

of land use. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court found discrimination

among the equals and dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by the

State and also observed as under:-

"The contention that Zoning Regulations were likely to be violated by assigning and delivering possession of the land in favour of the writ petitioners, also has no substance. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, Zoning Regulations can always be relaxed, if necessary. In any event, if the other assignees were permitted to carry on the same business in the same area, it could hardly be contended that the Zoning Regulations were likely to be violated only in the case of original three writ petitioners. The contention that the value of Rs.200/- per sq.yard is far too less as compared to the market price, is also of no avail. The value of the land was fixed on a report made by the collector after due enquiry and, presumably, reflects the prevalent price in the year 1994. Merely because the land prices may have risen subsequently, after laying out the plots in the adjoining area and the provision of amenities the assignments, the assignments could not have been cancelled. Article 14 guarantees equal treatment to persons who are equally situated. That the three writ petitioners were situated equally as M/s. DOT Publishers and Roots Public School, is beyond cavil. The High Court was therefore right in taking the view that there was infringement of Article 14."

4. Thereafter, the Government, having accepted the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 01.11.2002, issued

G.O.Ms.Nos.482, 483 and 484 dated 20.07.2004 allotting the 5 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch very same land to the petitioners 1 to 3 herein respectively and

the second respondent was directed to hand over the possession

of the respective land to the petitioners herein. The possession

of the land was handed over to the petitioners on 02.08.2004.

Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad requesting for grant of permission for

construction of a building for the purpose of establishing

printing press and the said request of the petitioners was

rejected by the Municipal Corporation on the ground that the

petitioners have not submitted the registered documents, as

required under Section 429 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation Act, 1955 evidencing the title over the respective

lands besides certain other objections.

5. At that stage, the respondent-State issued memo

No.14116/Assn.III/1/96 dated 01.09.2007 directing the second

respondent to resume the land allotted to the petitioners and

others for violating the conditions under G.O.Ms.Nos.482, 483

and 484 dated 20.07.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners

herein jointly filed W.P.No.4905 of 2008 and the same was

allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order

dated 17.07.2012 on the ground of violation of principles of

natural justice and gave liberty to the State to pass orders 6 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch afresh. Thereupon the respondent-State issued G.O.Ms.No.577

Revenue (Assignment-III Department) dated 27.11.2013

directing the second respondent to issue final notice giving six

months' time to the petitioners to get all the clearances and to

start the work with reference to the object for which the land

was allotted to them without any deviations and to show the

progress. Failing which it was further directed that the second

respondent may resume back the land if the same is not put to

use for which it is meant.

6. At that stage, the second respondent addressed letters

dated 22.04.2014 to the petitioners herein separately while

enclosing a draft deed of allotment for registering the same in

favour of the petitioners and requiring the petitioners to give

their consent and further informed the petitioners that the said

conveyance deed cannot be executed immediately as the model

Code of Conduct due to General Elections was in operation and

if the conditions were agreed, the deed will be executed after the

model Code of Conduct comes to an end. In response thereto,

the petitioners gave their consent for the draft conveyance deed

through letters, dated 28.04.2014.

7. At that stage, the petitioners, having realised that the

condition imposed in the said G.O.Ms.No.577 dated 27.11.2013 7 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch cannot be complied with for want of clearances from various

departments of the Government, submitted separate

representations dated 25.02.2014 requesting for extension for a

further period of six more months. The said request of the

petitioners was rejected by the respondent-Government through

letter No.9362/Assn.III/1/2014-1 dated 17.04.2014. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.22601 of 2014.

8. During pendency of the said Writ Petition, the

respondents required the petitioners to show cause as to why

the land allotted to the petitioners should not be resumed.

Aggrieved by such notices, the petitioners approached this

Court by jointly filing W.P.No.32403 of 2015 and this Court by

an order dated 05.10.2015 stayed the further proceedings in

pursuance of the said impugned show cause notices. In the

meanwhile, the request made by the petitioners for change of

land use from residential use and open space use to commercial

use in respect of the land allotted to the petitioners was rejected

by the Government by issuing Lr.No.182298/11/2012-5 dated

15.09.2014 on the ground that the change of land use from

residential and open space use to general commercial use would

spoil the residential nature of locality and the tranquillity of the

surrounding areas. Aggrieved by such rejection order, the 8 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch petitioners once again approached this Court by jointly filing

W.P.No.30993 of 2014. While the above matters were pending

before this Court, when there was interference with the

possession of the respective petitioners by the respondents, the

petitioners filed W.P.No.8376 of 2018 seeking a direction not to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners

over their respective allotted land.

9. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel,

contended that the entitlement of the petitioners for allotment of

the subject land at the rate of Acs.2.00 gts each is already

adjudicated by this Court, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the Civil Appeals and inter se parties the issue has

become final including the entitlement of the petitioners to seek

conversion of land use and for their entitlement of all the

benefits or concessions that were extended in favour of the

other two entities and under no circumstances the Government

is entitled to resume back the land that is allotted to the

petitioners herein. He further contended that the allotment that

is made in favour of the petitioners is to be construed as a grant

under Government Grants Act, 1895 and further contended that

the allotment made in favour of the petitioners is not a

conditional allotment either with reference to any period within 9 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch which the land should be put to use or otherwise except for

putting the use of the land for the purpose for which it is

allotted. He also placed strong reliance on the order passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7152 to 7157 of

2002 inter se parties and contended that the same operate as

res judicata and the respondents are not entitled to resume

back the land from the petitioners or subject the allotment any

further conditions the allotment under original three G.Os. is

still in force, and further contended that all the grounds raised

by the respondents in the counter affidavit are not available to

them as the same were already rejected by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

10. On the other hand, learned Advocate General contended

that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.577 dated 27.11.2013, the

petitioners were granted six months' time for obtaining all the

clearances and to start the work relating to the purpose for

which the land was allotted to them but the petitioners failed to

comply with the said condition and hence, they are not entitled

for any extension of time and the request of petitioners for

extension of time was rightly rejected by the Government

through the impugned order in W.P.No.22601 of 2014. He also

placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex 10 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana1 and A.P. Industrial

Infrastructural Corpn. Ltd. v. Shivani Engg. Industries2 and

contended that once the land is allotted for a specific purpose

subject to terms and conditions, the same should be complied

with and that the refusal of request for extension of time by the

Government cannot be a subject matter of judicial review as the

petitioners failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the

Government. He also further contended that the petitioners

cannot claim any equity on par with the other two entities, as

the State is being deprived of huge largessy which otherwise can

be utilised for other public purposes. Learned Advocate General

also further contended that one Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy

happens to be Director in all the three petitioner companies and

there is some suspicion in the entire transaction and the

petitioners have fraudulently obtained the allotment in their

favour and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief

in these Writ Petitions.

11. In the light of the arguments advanced on either side and

after perusing the entire material on record especially the order

of the Hon'ble Apex Court inter se parties in Civil Appeal Nos.

Civil Appeal Nos.7152 to 7157 of 2002 dated 01.11.2002, the

1 (2019) 11 SCC 422 2 (2015) 7 SCC 241 11 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch points that arise for consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions

are as under:-

(i) Whether the allotment of land made in favour of the

petitioners under G.O.Ms.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 dated

31.10.1994 are in force and binding on respondent-State?

(ii) Whether the respondent-Government is entitled to

resume the land allotted in favour of the petitioners under the

said G.Os. while allowing the other two entities to continue to

enjoy the land allotted to them?

(iii) Whether the Government having allotted the land

unconditionally (except the purpose for which the land should

be used) is entitled to subject the allotment to various other

conditions at a later point of time?

(iv) Whether the Government after having received the

consideration without executing a proper conveyance deed is

entitled to cancel the allotment on the ground that the

petitioners failed to put the land allotted to them for the

purpose for which it is allotted?

(v) Whether the respondent-Government is justified in

refusing to convert the land use from residential and open space

to general commercial use in the light of the fact that the land 12 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch used is allowed in the very same vicinity in favour of the other

two entities?

(vi) Whether the respondents are entitled to interfere with

the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their

respective extents of land allotted to them?

As all the parties are interlinked, the same are considered

together.

12. From the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court inter se

parties in Civil Appeal Nos.7152 to 7157 of 2002 dated

01.11.2002 reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v.

Maharshi Publishers Pvt. Ltd.3, the issues with regard to price

at which the land was allotted and the entitlement of the

petitioners to seek conversion of the land used from residential

and open space to the commercial use etc. are concluded and

either of the parties are entitled to reopen the issues that were

already finalised in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. At

this stage, it is necessary to take note of the finding of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, which reads as under:-

"Article 14 guarantees equal treatment to persons who are equally situated. That the three writ petitioners were situated equally as M/s. DOT Publishers and Roots Public School, is beyond cavil. The High Court was therefore right in taking the view that there was infringement of Article 14."

3 (2003) 1 SCC 95 13 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch Any attempt made by the respondents to tinker with such

findings rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be

countenanced. By virtue of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.Nos.3376, 3384 and 4637 of 1996 dated

01.04.1998 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in W.A.Nos.1715, 1716 and 1720 of 1998 dated

08.05.2001 and the orders passed in Contempt Case Nos.114,

115 and 116 of 2001, the possession of the plots were directed

to be delivered to the respective petitioners while setting aside

G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 16.01.2001 and the said judgment was

confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the light of setting

aside of G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 16.01.2001, the original allotment

order in G.O.Ms.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 stood restored and

though there was no necessity for the respondent-Government

to issue fresh G.Os. allotting the land once again to the

petitioners, respondent-Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.482,

483 and 484 allotting the land once again in favour of the

petitioners herein. Either in the first set of G.Os. or in the

second set of G.Os., there were any conditions imposed except

with regard to usage of the said land allotted in favour of the

petitioners. Further, there was no timeline fixed in any of the

G.Os. under which the allotment took place. But for the 14 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch reasons best known, even after prolonged litigation up to the

Hon'ble Apex Court and after losing a battle, the respondent-

Government continued its efforts to deprive the petitioners of

the benefit of allotment in respect of which consideration was

deposited as early as on 29.11.1994 resulting in forcing the

petitioner to approach this Court again and again. Ultimately,

the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.577 dated 27.11.2013 for

the first time imposing the condition of obtaining all the

clearances and to start the work within a period of six (6)

months and threatened to resume back the land, if such a

condition is not complied with.

13. At this stage, it is necessary to notice that the

Government, having issued G.Os., allotting the land in favour of

the petitioners and having received the consideration for such

allotment as early as in the year 1994, failed to hand over

possession of the respective land to the petitioners till the

petitioners approached this Court and this Court issued a Writ

of Mandamus, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

on 01.11.2002. Even thereafter, it is only on 02.08.2004 i.e.

after a lapse of almost two years, the possession of the subject

land was handed over to the petitioners. Even after handing

over possession to the petitioners, the respondents failed to 15 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch execute proper conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners for

another decade and it is only on 22.04.2014, the second

respondent for the first time addressed a letter to the petitioners

seeking their consent for the draft deed of allotment and

immediately thereafter the petitioners expressed their

willingness in the draft deed of allotment and communicated the

same to the second respondent through their letter dated

28.04.2014 i.e. within a period of six days. Even thereafter, no

deed of allotment is executed in favour of the petitioners due to

model Code of Conduct due to General Elections and thereafter.

Instead of conveying the property once again the respondents

have initiated the proceedings by issuing show cause notice

dated 22.09.2015 to show cause as to why the land should not

be resumed back. Thus, at every stage, the conduct of the

respondents is to see that by hook or crook to cancel the

allotment made in favour of the petitioners and to resume back

the land and prevented the petitioners from commencing

construction for the purpose for which the land was allotted to

the petitioners. As already noted above, the allotment that was

made in favour of the petitioners under the initial G.Os. of the

year 1994 have attained finality by virtue of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and the said allotment is not subject to any 16 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch conditions either with regard to timeline or otherwise and in the

absence of any such terms and conditions in allotting the land

to the petitioners, the Government cannot be permitted to

resume back the land on the ground of violation of conditions.

Any such lenience or scope given to the respondents to deprive

the petitioners of the benefit of the G.Os. under which the land

was allotted and benefit of the order passed by this Court, as

confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, would amount to a

situation of lawlessness and arbitrary action.

14. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by

the learned Advocate General in the cases Dalip Singh v. State

of Haryana and A.P. Industrial Infrastructural Corpn. Ltd. v.

Shivani Engg. Industries (1 and 2 supra) have no application

to the facts on hand as the said judgments pertain to the

allotment of land subject to certain terms and conditions

mentioned in the respective allotment orders. In the instant

case, it is not the case.

15. As already noted above, the request of the petitioners for

grant of construction permission was rejected by the Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad on 05.07.2005 for want of registered

conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the

land allotted in their favour. Admittedly, no conveyance deed is 17 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch executed by the respondent-Government in favour of the

petitioners as on date and an attempt to execute such

document was made for the first time only in the year 2014 i.e.

after a lapse of a decade since the date of allotment. In the

absence of proper conveyance deed, the petitioners could not

obtain the required permissions from the statutory authorities

and the respondent-State is responsible for such situation. The

respondent having disabled the petitioners from obtaining

necessary permissions and to commence the work has

arbitrarily proposed to cancel the allotments on the ground that

the petitioners failed to commence the work by obtaining

necessary clearances within the time stipulated under

G.O.Ms.No.572. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in

their counter-affidavit that even if the six months' time, as

sought for in W.P.No.22601 of 2014 is granted also the same

has worked out by lapse of time and no purpose would be

served cannot be accepted.

16. The other allegation that all the three petitioner

companies are being managed by single person and that the

affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is also being signed

by only one person on behalf of all the three petitioners etc., are

all appears to have been made only to cover up the lapses on 18 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch the part of the respondents. It is not the ground on which the

respondents refused to extend the time or proposed to resume

back the land in favour of the Government. For the first time,

the respondents have put forth such pleas alleging fraud before

this Court without there being any material on record. Mere

allegation of fraud basing upon some suspicion leads nowhere.

Any allegation of fraud is required to be pleaded and proved

with proper evidence. In the absence of the same, such bald

allegations cannot be entertained by this Court. Even assuming

that the single person is representing before this Court on

behalf of all petitioners can be a ground to suspect the bona

fides of the petitioners as the cause of action and the fact

situation is same to all the petitioners herein, there is nothing

wrong if the petitioners herein joining together for fighting the

litigation against the respondent-State. It is unfortunate that

the State having lost the battle till the Apex Court is putting

forth such frivolous and unsustainable grounds to deprive the

petitioners of the fruits of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

17. The other allegations with regard to the activities of the

petitioners' companies in not publishing any newspaper etc., are

also totally irrelevant and the right of the Government to insist 19 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch for publication of newspapers etc. in order to achieve the object

for which the land is allotted in favour of the petitioners would

arise only after proper conveyance is made in favour of the

petitioners and the petitioners are allowed to set up the

respective establishments. The respondent-State having put

hurdles at every stage and after having received the entire sale

consideration as early as in the year 1994 delivered possession

of the subject property in the year 2004 and failed to execute

proper conveyance deed as on date. Hence, under no

circumstances, the respondent-Government can be permitted to

raise all such frivolous grounds at this stage. No doubt, in case

if the petitioners fail to comply with the requirement of putting

the subject land for the purpose for which it was allotted in

favour of the petitioners after the respondent-State Government

complied with all its obligations including executing proper

conveyance deed etc., it is always open for the respondent-

Government to compel the petitioners to comply with such

obligations in accordance with law.

18. In the light of the above, point No.(i) is answered in

positive and G.O.Ms.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 Revenue

(Assignment) Dated 31.10.1994 are in force and the same is

binding on the respondent-State. Point No.(ii) is answered in 20 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch negative declaring that the respondent-State is not entitled to

resume the land back and any such attempt by the respondent-

State while allowing the other two entities to continue to enjoy

the land allotted to them is arbitrary and violative of Article 14

of the Constitution of India. Point No.(iii) is answered in

negative declaring that the Government is not entitled to put

additional terms and conditions other than the conditions

imposed in original allotment Government Orders vide

G.O.Nos.1096, 1098 and 1099 dated 31.10.1994. Point No.(iv)

is also answered in the negative declaring that the respondent-

State is not entitled to cancel the allotment orders after having

received entire consideration on the ground that the petitioners

failed to put the land for use for which it is allotted. Point No.(v)

is also answered in negative declaring that the petitioners

herein are also entitled for conversion of land used in the same

lines under which the other two entities were granted

conversion of land use. So also point No.(vi) is answered in

negative declaring that the respondents are not entitled to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners

over their respective extents of land allotted to them.

19. Having taken note of the contentions and unabated

attempts made by the respondent-State to deprive the 21 MSK,J W.P.NO.22601 OF 2014 & Batch petitioners of the benefits of the order passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court dated 01.11.2002 and also taking into consideration

the delay that had occurred since the year 1994 in the matter of

executing proper conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners,

these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned order in

W.P.No.22601 of 2014 and the impugned show cause notices in

W.P.No.32403 of 2015 are set aside with the following

directions:-

(1) The respondents are directed to take immediate steps for

execution and registration of proper conveyance deed in

favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 in respect of the respective

allotted lands and complete the same within a period of

two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this