Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.Naturol Bio Energy Ltd, vs The Zonal Manager, on 3 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.239 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for the APIICL, for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
The present Writ Petition came to be instituted assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in allotting the lands admeasuring Ac.24.00 cents situated in Industrial Park, Vakalpudi, popularly called as Thammavaram Village Layout plan covered by S.Nos.192/P, 193/P, 194/P, 199/P and 200/P, 201/P and 204/P of Thammavaram Village Layout in Industrial area of Kakinada, East Godavari District and the registered lease agreement, dated 12.12.2007, executed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent and the allotment letter vide Lr.No.54/IP/VKPD/Open- Space/07-1647, dated 12.12.2007.
According to the petitioner, it is a company, which produces Biodiesel products and, initially in the year, 2006, for a period of five years, the APIIC on lease basis allotted an extent of Ac.30.00 cents of land in the aforesaid survey numbers. According to the petitioner, on ground the extent of the land being Ac.24.00 cents only. On the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent decreased the rentals from Rs.1200/- to Rs.1000/- per acre p.a. According to the petitioner, on 20.06.2007, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was sent to the respondents towards lease amount. Vide letter, dated 03.12.2007, the APIIC had withdrawn the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and, questioning the said action, petitioner herein AVSS,J W.P.No.239 of 2008 2 filed W.P.No.26860 of 2007 and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Writ Petition was allowed by the common High Court vide order, dated 17.12.2007, setting aside the order of withdrawal, dated 03.12.2007, however, keeping it open for the respondents to take action, in accordance with law, after issuing notice. Subsequently, vide letter, dated 21.12.2007, petitioner herein returned the cheques towards the lease amount and made a request for execution of lease deed but no action was taken thereafter. Vide impugned proceedings, dated 12.12.2007, respondent Corporation allotted the same land in favour of the third respondent and, according to the petitioner, the said proceedings are antedated. Questioning the aforesaid action, the present Writ Petition came to be filed and, on 08.01.2008, in W.P.M.P.No.249 of 2008, the common High Court granted an order of status quo.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action of allotment in favour of the third respondent herein, without adhering to the orders passed by the common High Court in W.P.No.26860 of 2007, dated 17.12.2007, is highly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be declared as such.
Even according to the petitioner, ever since the date of allotment, initially in the year, 2006, and in terms of the orders of this Court, dated 08.01.2008, petitioner herein has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is significant to note that, in the year, 2006, initially the land was allotted in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years only. Now, we are in the year, 2022. Since the lease period also came to an end long back by efflux of time, in the considered opinion of this Court, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any longer and there cannot be adjudication on merits on the issues raised in the Writ Petition.
AVSS,J W.P.No.239 of 2008 3 Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J 03rd February, 2022 Tsy