Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11

(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 1 (2010) 8 SCC 467 2 (1997) 2 SCC 627 3 (2021) 3 SCC 388 4 (2003) 1 SCC 335 5 AIR 2013 SC 565 MSM,J WP_6033_2021 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.

6 LAWS (SC) 2016 - 526 7 1936 AIR (PC) 253 MSM,J WP_6033_2021 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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?

8

2021 SCC OnLine AP 4191 MSM,J WP_6033_2021 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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. 9 (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 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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