Dr. Urmila Pingle vs State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2023

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Dr. Urmila Pingle vs State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2023

Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                              AND

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

          + WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.46 of 2019

% 05.06.2023

#   Between:

Dr. Urmila Pingle and another
                                                 ...Petitioners
                           VERSUS

State of Telangana,
Represented by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad,
And others.
                                               ...Respondents

!     Counsel for the petitioners   : Mr. D.Prakash Reddy,
                                    Senior Counsel
                  representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq


^     Counsel for the State respondents   : Mr. B.S.Prasad,
                                          Advocate General

Counsel for respondents No.10 to 12: Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy
                             Senior Counsel representing
                               Ms. Rubaina S. Khatoon


<GIST:
                           2




> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

  1.       (1987) 2 SCC 295
  2.       (1988) 1 SCC 166
  3.       (1991) 1 SCC 212
  4.       (1996) 5 SCC 510
  5.       (2009) 6 SCC 171
  6.       (2011) 5 SCC 29
  7.       (2012) 3 SCC 1
  8.       (2012) 10 SCC 1
  9.       (2012) 12 SCC 419
  10.      (2015) 1 SCC 720
  11.      (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1188
  12.      (1980) 4 SCC 1
  13.      (1997) 1 SCC 164
  14.      (1997) 7 SCC 592
  15.      (2000) 8 SCC 262
  16.      (2014) 4 SCC 156
  17.      (2018) 3 SCC 732
  18.      2017 SCC Online Guj 299
  19.      (2018) 4 SCC 218
  20.      (2018) 8 SCC 321
  21.      (2018) 18 SCC 65
  22.      (2011) 8 SCR 653
                                            3




         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY


               WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.46 of 2019

ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana for the State respondents; and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Rubaina S. Khatoon, learned counsel for respondents No.10, 11 and 12.

2. This public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed assailing the legality and validity of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 of the Revenue (Assignment.II) Department, Government of Telangana as well as Memo dated 02.08.2018 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to 4 Government of Telangana, Revenue (Assignment.II) Department.

3. By G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018, Government of Telangana decided to allot government land to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation i.e., respondent No.10, which would also be referred as Sai Sindhu Foundation, for construction of hospital for cancer and other life threatening diseases on a non-profit basis on lease on the same terms and conditions as applicable in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the said government land was ordered for allotment in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation. The allotment has been made subject to certain conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 which we will advert to in the course of the judgment.

4. By Memo dated 02.08.2018, government ordered that the said land be handed over to Sai Sindhu Foundation, further requesting the Collector, Ranga Reddy District to calculate the lease amount per annum duly keeping in view the present lease amount charged at the rate of Rs.50,000.00 per annum on 5% increase of lease rent for every three years as fixed in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital.

5. PIL petitioners are Dr. Urmila Pingle and Mr. Kanagasabai Suresh Kumar. First petitioner is a medical anthropologist and is a well known activist in the field of environmental issues and human rights, particularly tribal rights. She is a member of several societies and has a number of publications in reputed journals to her credit. Petitioner No.2 is a Hyderabad based practicing lawyer.

6. As already mentioned above, the PIL has been filed assailing the above G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018 and 6 Memo dated 02.08.2018 whereby it has been alleged that the State authorities in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner allotted government land to Sai Sindhu Foundation at extremely meagre and nominal rates in utter violation of Government Land Allotment Policy and other legal provisions and in the process causing huge pecuniary loss to the State exchequer which has been quantified by the petitioners at Rs.5,344.6 crores. It is alleged that valuable land measuring Acs.15.00 located in prime area of the city has been leased out to Sai Sindhu Foundation for a period of sixty years for a nominal lease rent of Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum which, it is alleged, is in direct contravention of the Government Land Allotment Policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015.

7. In order to ensure judicious allotment of government land for public purposes and to ensure uniformity, G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, was introduced. 7 Clause 3(h)(d) of G.O.Ms.No.571 deals with lease rental. It says that lease rental will be 10% of the prevailing market value as fixed by the competent authority. The lease rental shall be revised every five years and re-fixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of revision.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that land allotment in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation ought to have been governed by the aforesaid lease rental clause and other provisions of the Government Land Allotment Policy. Instead, land has been leased out by the State to Sai Sindhu Foundation on the same terms and conditions when government land was allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital vide G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989. The said allotment was made more than thirty years ago covering land to the extent of Acs.7.35 guntas for an amount of Rs.50,000.00 per annum for the first three years to be increased by 5% for every three years thereafter. Keeping the basis of Rs.50,000.00 per annum for Acs.7.35 8 guntas of land allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital vide G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989, the rental amount for respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation for Acs.15.00 has been calculated at Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District. However, in the final order granting lease in favour of respondent No.10, there is no mention or reference to G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. Had the lease rent been fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.571 of 2012, the yearly lease rent would itself have amounted to Rs.50.5 crores from the first year itself.

9. Petitioners have alleged gross arbitrariness and mala fides in such action of the State. It is contended that land has been leased out to Sai Sindhu Foundation without taking into consideration the high market value of land in the area as on the date of allotment. Market value of the subject land was ascertained by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranga Reddy District in the year 2016 by taking into consideration the following factors: i) Rs.33.70 crores per 9 acre; ii) Rs.55,000.00 to Rs.60,000.00 per square yard for residential purposes; and iii) Rs.70,000.00 to Rs.80,000.00 per square yard for commercial purposes. On the above basis, the entire extent of the land admeasuring Acs.15.00 was valued at Rs.505.50 crores.

10. Special Grade Deputy Collector vide communication dated 26.08.2016 to the Collector mentioned that the subject land is in prime locality neary Hitex City and recommended the land to be valued at Rs.75,000.00 per square yard keeping in view location of the land.

11. It is stated that the subject land was initially allotted to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.12.00 crores per acre in the year 2008 itself vide G.O.Ms.No.1484 dated 12.12.2008. As the land value has increased significantly in the last decade, it is estimated that current market value of the land has significantly increased and has been 10 estimated at Rs.75,000.00 per square yard by the department itself totalling to Rs.505.00 crores.

12. However, Government has allotted the land to respondent No.10 on the same terms as in G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 i.e., at a rate which was fixed more than thirty years back. Basic value of the land in 1989 was Rs.50.00 per square yard. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 was issued before introduction of the Government Land Allotment Policy on 14.09.2012 which was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015. It is contended that government order of 1989 cannot be the basis for allotment of government land in the year 2018.

13. According to the petitioners, government had conducted a public auction for sale of land adjacent to the subject land on 20.04.2016 and as per newspaper report, price offered was Rs.29.00 crores per acre. But this procedure was not adopted in the present case. Because of 11 such action of the government, there has been a huge loss to the State exchequer.

14. It is stated that Sai Sindhu Foundation i.e., respondent No.10 is a Trust which is promoted by respondent No.11 - Dr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy, who is the Chairman of Hetero Group of Companies i.e., respondent No.12. Though Sai Sindhu Foundation claims to be a charitable trust, it has no prior experience of any such charitable activities, not to speak of establishing any charitable hospital. Respondent No.12 i.e., Hetero Group of Companies is engaged in the business of production and marketing of medicines and has no experience of establishing or managing any hospital, leave alone any charitable hospital.

15. It is alleged that Hetero Group of Companies is one of the accused in RC.No.19(A)/2011-CBI, Hyderabad in which case, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed charge sheet before the Special CBI Court. Upon cognizance being 12 taken, C.C.No.8 of 2012 has been registered which case is now at the stage of trial. Enforcement Directorate has also registered a case bearing No.ECIR No.09/OSZO/2011 against Hetero Group of Companies under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. There also Enforcement Directorate has filed charge sheet before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and upon cognizance being taken, Sessions Case No.92 of 2016 has been registered.

16. Petitioners have alleged that impugned G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 was issued without any advertisement or public notice. There was no auction of the subject land. Petitioners have questioned the opaque exercise undertaken by the respondents in granting State's largesse to a private body without calling for any competitive bidding. It is contended that such action amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13

17. How the loss has been caused to the State exchequer has been explained by the petitioners in the form of two statements in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ affidavit. According to the petitioners, if the lease rentals are calculated on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, the total rental value for the sixty years of lease would be Rs.5,346.07 crores. The said figure has been arrived at in the following manner:

Block Period as per Land Lease Rents as per Govt. Land Allotment Policy, 2012 Allotment Policy, 2012 (land cost being at a minimum of Rs.500 crores) @ 10% enhancement for every block of 5 years (Rs.in crores) 01-05 years 250.00 06-10 years 275.00 11-15 years 302.50 16-20 years 332.75 21-25 years 366.03 26-30 years 402.63 31-35 years 442.89 36-40 years 487.18 41-45 years 535.90 46-50 years 589.49 51-55 years 648.44 56-60 years 713.28 Total Rental Value Rs.5346.07 Crores 14

18. In contrast to the above, petitioners have worked out the total lease rental of the subject land for sixty years as per the rent fixed by G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 as per which the total rental value comes to Rs.146.8 lakhs i.e., approximately Rs.1.47 crores. The above estimate has been arrived at by the petitioners in the following manner:

Block Period as per the Lease Rents as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.59 - impugned order in which for 3 years every block of 3 years, enhancement is 5% (Rs.in Lakhs approximately) 01-03 years 4.44 04-06 years. 4.66 07-09 years 4.89 10-12 years 5.14 13-15 years 5.40 16-18 years 5.67 19-21 years 5.95 22-24 years 6.25 25-27 years 6.56 28-30 years 6.89 31-33 years 7.23 34-36 years 7.59 37-39 years 7.97 40-42 years 8.37 43-45 years 8.79 46-48 years 9.23 49-51 years 9.69 52-54 years 10.18 55-57 years 10.68 58-60 years 11.22 Total Rental Value Rs.146.8 Lakhs 15 (i.e., approx 1.47 crores)

19. From this it is evident that the State has actually suffered financial loss of about Rs.5,344.6 crores (Rs.5,346.07 crores - Rs.1.47 crores).

20. Such action of the State amounts to virtually handing over of prime land to private entities at great loss to the public exchequer. Impugned action is not only arbitrary but reeks of favouritism.

21. It is stated that District Collector of Ranga Reddy District had carried out a reassessment of the need for allotting such large extent of government land to private parties and thereafter put forth a revised proposal for allotment of Acs.10.00 of land to respondent No.10 instead of Acs.15.00 of land vide communication dated 29.10.2017. Following a meeting of Telangana State Land Management Authority on 21.12.2017 and on the basis of the revised proposal of the District Collector, respondent No.2 had written a letter to respondent No.1 to pass 16 suitable order(s) for allotment of Acs.10.00 of land in favour of respondent No.10 for establishment of cancer hospital on lease basis. However, despite such suggestion by respondent No.2 to allot only Acs.10.00, respondent No.1 arbitrarily allotted Acs.15.00 of land to respondent No.10. It is further stated that not only a larger extent of land was allotted to respondent No.10, the latter was given the benefit of a different plot of equivalent land (from Map-

B to Map-C) so much so that respondent No.10 was allotted land facing the road which is, therefore, more valuable.

22. Petitioners have alleged that establishment of Trust and setting up of charitable hospital is nothing but a cover up to justify illegal allotment of prime government land, that too, in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, to respondent No.10.

23. In the above factual backdrop, petitioners have prayed for quashing of G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, as well as Memo dated 02.08.2018.

24. This court by order dated 29.04.2019 had issued notice and as an interim measure, clarified that any lease granted to respondent No.10 and any construction raised by respondents No.10, 11 and 12 thereon shall be subject to the decision of this court. Further, respondents No.10, 11 and 12 have been injuncted from creating any third party right during the pendency of the writ petition.

25. It appears that two more public interest litigations were filed on the same subject matter being W.P (PIL).Nos.141 and 144 of 2019. All the three public interest litigations were heard together on 11.02.2021, whereafter the following order came to be passed:

1. Pleadings are complete in all the three petitions viz., W.P (PIL) Nos.144, 46 and 141 of 2019.

2. The grievance of the petitioners in all the three petitions is common, which is for declaring the action of the respondent No.1/State in issuing G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 and Memo dated 02.08.2018, directing land to the extent of Acs.15.00 to be handed over to the respondent No.10 @ Rs.1,47,000/- per year for a period of 33 years, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. With the consent of the parties, W.P. (PIL) No.46 of 2019 shall be treated as the lead matter for purposes of arguments. Interim order has already been passed in the said petition clarifying that the lease granted to the respondent No.10 and any construction raised by the respondents No.10 to 12 shall be subject to the outcome of the petition and further, the said respondents have been restrained from creating third party rights during the pendency of the petition. The construction is stated to be ongoing. The said order shall continue to operate during the pendency of the present petition.

26. Thus, it is seen that it was brought to the notice of this court that construction was going on and in the face of such submission, this court clarified that interim order passed earlier would continue to operate during the pendency of the writ petition. It was also mentioned that 19 W.P (PIL).No.46 of 2019 would be treated as the lead matter.

27. However, by a separate order dated 11.02.2021 this court took the view that since the issue raised in all the public interest litigations was common, there was no reason to duplicate the matters. While retaining W.P (PIL).No.46 of 2019 on board, the other two public interest litigations, being W.P (PIL).Nos.141 and 144 of 2019 were disposed of along with the pending applications. Nonetheless, liberty was granted to learned counsel for the petitioners in those two public interest litigations to assist the court.

28. It was thereafter that I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed in W.P (PIL).No.141 of 2019 for recall of the aforesaid order and to hear W.P (PIL).No.141 of 2019 along with W.P (PIL).No.46 of 2019. However, without recalling the order dated 11.02.2021, we have allowed learned counsel 20 representing the applicant to intervene in the proceedings of W.P (PIL).No.46 of 2019.

29. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit through the Special Chief Secretary - Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari. Respondent No.1 has stated that the public interest litigation filed is completely misconceived, being not based on any foundational research.

29.1. Formulation and implementation of any economic policy is the responsibility of the executive, the merit of which is not subject to judicial review, except on the ground of constitutional infirmities. Executive is entitled to take legitimate factors into consideration for the interest of the public and for good governance. Except for the bald assertion that impugned proceedings in favour of respondent No.10 are in violation of Government Land Allotment Policy, petitioners have not placed any relevant materials for this court to interfere in what is contended to be a legitimate government decision.

29.2. According to respondent No.1, sole plank of the petitioners is economic loss to the State Government while granting lease in favour of respondent No.10. Petitioners have conveniently ignored the fact that the impugned government order has to be read in totality. If it is read as a whole, it would be evident that land has been allotted to respondent No.10 for setting up of a health institution where health care would be provided free of cost to 25% of the inpatients and 40% of the outpatients belonging to economically weaker sections of the society. That apart, 25% discount would be provided to all inpatients while availing benefit of government schemes like, Aarogya Sree and Employees Health Scheme.

29.3. Government has framed Government Land Allotment Policy vide G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, for allotment of government land to different government departments and private organisations for various purposes. As per the said policy, Dr. B.Parthasarathi 22 Reddy, Chairman of Hetero Group of Companies who is also the Managing Trustee of Sai Sindhu Foundation had filed a representation before the Government requesting allotment of land to an extent of Acs.15.48 guntas on lease basis in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation for fulfilling the objectives of the Trust. In the said representation it was pointed out that 25% of the beds in the health institute proposed to be constructed on the allotted land would be free of charge for the poor people; besides 40% of the outpatients would also be treated free of charge. Collector of Ranga Reddy District had submitted proposal for alienation of land to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation for establishment of cancer hospital on payment of Rs.75,000.00 per square yard. The said proposal was placed before the Telangana State Land Management Authority on 21.12.2017. The said authority had recommended the proposal to the government for 23 allotment of the subject land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis on payment of lease rental as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 read with G.O.Ms.No.218 dated 01.12.2015 of the Revenue Department specifically for establishment of cancer hospital and not for any other purposes. Government after examining the entire issue and with reference to resolution No.638/2018 of the Council of Ministers dated 14.03.2018 issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018.

29.4. It is stated that Government has not alienated the said land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation but has allotted the same on lease basis only. Therefore, in G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 Government has granted lease of the said land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation for a period of thirty years. Thereafter, orders were issued vide Memo dated 02.08.2018 for handing over the said land to Sai Sindhu Foundation. It is stated that the 24 allotted land was changed from the one proposed by the Collector, Ranga Reddy, and instead, equivalent land was allotted to Sai Sindhu Foundation in the same locality, other conditions remaining the same.

29.5. Reference has been made to G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989 whereby land admeasuring Acs.7.35 guntas situated at Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District was leased out in favour of Smt. Nandamuri Basava Taraka Rama Rao Memorial Cancer Foundation, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The lease period shall be initially for 30 (thirty) years renewable for another period of 30 (thirty) years;

(ii) The lease amount shall be Rs.50,000/- per annum for the first three years and there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every three years till the end of the lease period;

(iii) 25% of the beds shall be free to the poor;

(iv) 40% of the out-patients shall be treated free of cost; and

(v) The building shall be completed in two years from the date of putting the Cancer Foundation in possession of the land.

29.6. Akin to the above request and consequential allotment, Sai Sindhu Foundation had made a representation before the government. After following the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, the proposal was examined and following decision of the Council of Ministers dated 14.03.2018, government issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, allotting government land to the extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation for construction of hospital for cancer and other life threatening diseases. The allotment was made on lease basis on similar terms as per allotment made to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital, though certain additional conditions have been added. Thus, land has been allotted 26 to Sai Sindhu Foundation, subject to the following conditions:

i. The lease period shall be initially for thirty (30) years, renewable for another period of thirty (30) years.

ii. The lease amount shall be collected as per the rate in G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dt:26.05.1989, wherein, lease amount was fixed for Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital, for the first three (3) years and there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every three (3) years till the end of the lease period.

iii. 25% of the "In Patients (IP)", who are the poor people, shall be treated free of cost.

iv. 40% of Out-Patients (OP), who are poor, shall be treated free of cost.

v. 25% discount shall be given in each bill for all In-

patients (IP), admitted under all Government sponsored schemes like Aarogyasree, Employees Health Scheme etc. vi. The lease rent shall be paid by the lessee per annum as fixed above and before January 10th of every year and the same shall be remitted in the 27 Government Treasury through proper Head of Account.

vii. Hospital Building shall be completed within two (2) years from the date of putting the foundation in possession of the land.

viii. The primary responsibility of monitoring and utilization of government land allotted to various organizations vest with the concerned Departments. Hence, the Director of Health shall ensure the development of land, management agreements and progress of implementation of project and also to monitor the utilization of land.

ix. No mortgage of the land without the prior approval of Government.

x. The management of proposed hospital shall submit a monthly report to the Director of Health and the Collector, Ranga Reddy district, with the details of "In Patients (IP) and Out Patients (OP)", who have been treated freely under the above conditions, failing which, the District Collector shall call for explanation, if he is not satisfied, he shall initiate proceedings for resumption of the land.

xi. The land shall be used for the purpose, for which it is allotted and not for any other purposes. 28 xii. Any violation of the said conditions will automatically cancel the lease and the said land will be reverted back to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, without any prior notice thereof. xiii. Other usual conditions laid under BSO-23 & utilization of land as per BSO-24, are applicable; 29.7. Reference has been made to the Government Land Allotment Policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, whereby certain norms have been fixed for allotment of government land as under:

(i) While fixing the cost of land to be charged, the general principles laid down in BSO-24, which take into consideration the purpose of allotment and the nature of the organization shall be followed. The provisions of BSO-24 shall apply to all the land allotments along with the conditions stipulated by the alienating agencies/ departments.

(ii) The allotment/ alienation shall be on market value as recommended by the Collector, and the TSLMA.

(iii) Market value should be ascertained by conducting local enquiry. However the land value shall not be less than the basic value of the land.

The following officers of Revenue Department shall be competent for recommending market value within the limits shown below.

                      Officer                        Market value


          Revenue Divisional Officer          Total land value upto
                                                  Rs.1.00 Crore


          Collector                           Total land value above
                                                  Rs.1.00 Crore




    (iv)     The Government land may be given free of costs to

State Government departments for welfare and development purposes. Lands for houses for Below Poverty Line families may also given free of cost.

(v) The Department of the Government may formulate and notify, appropriate concessional policies for the promotion of their respective sector, which inter alia, may include concessional rate of land for sale or lease. It shall be incumbent on the administrative department to ensure compliance with such conditions.

29.8. Thus Revenue Divisional Officer would be competent for recommending market value of land where the total 30 land value is up to Rs.1.00 crore; but where the total land value is above Rs.1.00 crore, it is the Collector who is competent for recommending the market value. 29.9. In respect of lease rental, G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 was amended in G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015. As per the amendment, the lease rental would be 10% of the prevailing market value per annum as fixed by the competent authority and would be revised after every five years. It would be refixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of revision. 29.10. Respondent No.1 has stated that keeping in view the larger objective of the Foundation to set up a tertiary medicare centre of excellence with the state of the art world class infrastructure, attended by world renowned doctors, cutting edge sophisticated equipments and advanced technology to cover research, training on cancer and other life threatening diseases management at Hyderabad and further keeping in view the objective of the Foundation to 31 ensure that 25% of the beds would be free of charge for the poor people, besides treating 40% of the outpatients free of charge, government issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018 for allotment of subject land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis for construction of hospital for cancer and other life threatening diseases on non-profit basis, subject to the conditions already mentioned above.

29.11. Further, on clarification sought for by the Collector of Ranga Reddy District as to fixation of lease rent, government has issued Memo dated 11.01.2019 agreeing to the proposal of the Collector to fix the lease rental at Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum for the first three years with provision for 5% increase in the lease rent thereafter for every three years till the end of the lease period. Conditions for allotment of land to Sai Sindhu Foundation are similar to the conditions governing allotment of land to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital.

29.12. Respondent No.1 has clarified that though in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, there is no mention of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, in fact, the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, has been followed in the case of Sai Sindhu Foundation. Non mentioning of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012 in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, would not vitiate allotment of land to Sai Sindhu Foundation. 29.13. Though Collector of Ranga Reddy District had submitted prevailing market value of the said land at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per square yard, keeping in view objectives of the Sai Sindhu Foundation, government has issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, allotting the said land to the foundation on lease basis for thirty years on the same condition of lease allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital vide G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989, with provision for increase of lease rental after every three years at the rate of 5%. In order to protect government land and 33 public interest, government did not allow Sai Sindhu Foundation to outrightly purchase the said land, but allotted the same on lease basis.

29.14. It is stated that out of Acs. 180.13 guntas of government land in Survey No.41/14, an extent of Acs.75.00 was handed over to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (now Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation) on 12.11.1997 vide G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 28.07.2000. That apart, land to the extent of Acs.105.13 guntas was handed over to Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) (erstwhile HUDA) on 22.04.2008. The above allotment was made vide G.O.Ms.No.1484, dated 12.12.2008, on payment of market value at the rate of Rs.12.00 crores per acre. After allotment to various agencies/organisations, land to an extent of Acs.63.20 guntas was available with Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and land to the extent of Acs.62.24 guntas was available with HMDA in 34 Survey No.41/14 of Khanamet Village. However, government vide Memo dated 23.04.2016 had directed resumption of government land to the extent of Acs.63.20 guntas in Survey No.41/14 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, from Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and land to the extent of Acs.62.24 guntas in Survey No.41/14 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, from HMDA for violation of allotment conditions. Upon resumption of land, government issued Memo dated 23.04.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 23.04.2016, according permission for sale of such land through e-auction-cum-e-tender. When the proposal for allotment of land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation was received, the same was placed before the Telangana State Land Management Authority on 21.12.2017. Telangana State Land Management Authority recommended to the government for allotment of land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis on payment of lease rental as per conditions stipulated in 35 G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, read with G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015, specifically for establishment of cancer hospital and not for any other purposes. Government considered the proposal vide the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 14.03.2018 whereafter impugned G.O.Ms.No59, dated 22.03.2018, was issued on the same terms and conditions on which land was earlier allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital. 29.15. Insofar Sai Sindhu Foundation is concerned, it is a public charitable trust set up in the year 2014 by Dr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy, who is the Managing Trustee of the foundation and Chairman of Hetero Group of Companies, which is a leading pharmaceutical enterprise in India engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of life saving medicines with an annual turnover of about $ 1.00 billion and employing more than fifteen thousand personnel. Object of the foundation is to set up a tertiary medicare centre of excellence with the state of art 36 world class infrastructure in Hyderabad. Dr. Nori.D, an internationally reputed cancer specialist born and brought up in Hyderabad, but now based in New York and many other world renowned doctors have agreed to extend their services to the hospital.

29.16. Amongst other conditions imposed by the Government while allotting the land to Sai Sindhu Foundation, it has also been imposed that the hospital building should be completed within two years from the date of putting the foundation in possession of the land; management of the proposed hospital shall submit a monthly report to the Director of Health and Collector of Ranga Reddy District the details of inpatients and outpatients who have been treated free of cost by the hospital; the land shall be used for the purpose for which it has been allotted and not for any other purpose. 29.17. State Government has justified the above decision by contending that the land has been allotted for setting up 37 of a world class cancer hospital to serve the poor people. Therefore, there can be no commercial consideration for allotment of such land.

29.18. It is also asserted that as per G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012 there was no need to call for tenders for allotment of government land on lease basis to any private organisation. As per procedure laid down in the said government order, Sai Sindhu Foundation had submitted a representation seeking allotment of the subject land to them. This request was processed whereafter Collector of Ranga Reddy District submitted proposal which in turn was considered by the Telangana State Land Management Authority whereafter the proposal was forwarded to the government. It was after examining the proposal that impugned G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, was issued. 29.19. It is admitted by the State Government that Collector of Ranga Reddy District had submitted revised proposal for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 38 instead of Acs.15.00 to Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis on payment of prevailing market value at the rate of Rs.75,000.00 per square yard. Chief Secretary as well the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana and Telangana State Land Management Authority had recommended the said proposal. However, keeping the commitment given by Dr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy, government had taken the decision in the meeting of the Council of Ministers held on 14.03.2018 to allot the subject land in favour of Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis on the same terms and conditions as applicable in case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital. However, G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018, was kept internal, though the same was communicated to the concerned authorities. 29.20. Collector of Ranga Reddy District in his letter dated 07.06.2018 informed the government that Trustee of Sai Sindhu Foundation had filed a representation dated 04.04.2018 requesting to change the orientation of 39 Acs.15.00 of land by giving certain reasons. After considering the proposal, Collector of Ranga Reddy District requested the Government to accord permission for handing over of equivalent extent of land to Sai Sindhu Foundation as per Map-C instead of Map-B. There is no change in the area of the land, except alignment in the map. This was accepted by the Government whereafter orders were issued on 02.08.2018 for handing over the land to Sai Sindhu Foundation.

29.21. Justifying the action of the State Government, the counter affidavit seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

30. Respondents No.10 and 11 have filed counter affidavit through Dr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy i.e., respondent No.11 who is also the Managing Trustee of respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation. He has referred to his rich experience in pharmaceutical industry and also about his status as founder chairman of the Hetero Group of Companies which is one of the largest 40 pharmaceutical companies in the country and is a world leader in the production of anti-retroviral drugs meant for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Both respondents No.11 and 12 have initiated several programmes for the benefit of society as part of corporate social responsibility. Sai Sindhu Foundation was constituted by respondent No.11 as a Trust after the tragic and untimely death of his daughter at a relatively young age of 35 years. It is in her memory and to render public service that Sai Sindhu Foundation was constituted as a charitable Trust by respondent No.11 which is supported by well wishers and benefactors, including respondent No.12. 30.1. It is stated that respondent No.10 - Sai Sindhu Foundation, is a non-profitable Trust and the hospital which is being established is not a commercial venture but is aimed solely at providing world class medical care to cancer patients belonging to all sections of the society. It is stated that cancer in its many forms has become one of the 41 most dreaded and medically complex problems. According to World Health Organisation, cancer is the second leading cause of deaths globally and in 2018, it was responsible for an estimated death of 9.6 million people. Approximately 70% of deaths from cancer occur in low and middle income countries due to unaffordable cancer treatment. Insofar India is concerned, there are about 2.25 million people having been afflicted with cancer. Due to lack of affordable cancer facilities, large number of people detected with cancer die in our country. There are only 400 cancer care centres in India out of which 260 are owned and operated by private sector. Only about 20% of the cancer patients population can afford to avail treatment in private hospitals because of prohibitive prices. Remaining 80% are treated in government hospitals. There is need to raise additional 1,60,000 hospital beds in order to provide affordable cancer treatment to the people. 42 30.2. National Health Policy, 2017 envisages the need for collaboration and partnership with non-profit organisations and advocates building synergy with non-profit organisations.

30.3. Realising the deficiencies in cancer treatment several State Governments have taken initiatives to set up cancer hospitals in collaboration or partnership with private entities. Another major problem in India relating to cancer treatment is scarcity of qualified doctors to treat cancer patients. As per official data, there are only about 1000 trained oncologists in the country. Ratio of oncologists to cancer patients is about 1:2000.

30.4. Insofar State of Telangana is concerned, there are 25 comprehensive cancer centres out of which only three are government run institutions: MNJ Institute of Oncology, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) and KMC, Warangal. Rest of the cancer centres are owned and operated privately which are naturally expensive. The 43 affidavit says that there are approximately 58,000 new cancer cases every year in the State of Telangana. Both government run institutions and private run institutions are inadequate to treat the ever increasing number of cancer patients. Therefore, there is need to increase the number of affordable cancer treatment centres in the State of Telangana.

30.5. It is in the above backdrop that it was decided that Sai Sindhu Foundation could provide medical assistance to support the public health care system in the State of Telangana in the field of cancer and other life threatening diseases. Untimely death of the daughter of respondent No.11 added to the need for taking up such a venture. After visiting many reputed cancer hospitals in India and abroad and after holding widespread discussions with experts, respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation decided to establish a world class hospital for treatment of cancer and other life threatening diseases in Hyderabad. 44 30.6. With the prices of urban land skyrocketing, establishment of any hospital in areas having proximity to urban centres would require huge capital outlay. Having regard to the policies of the State Government and having regard to the decision of Sai Sindhu Foundation in proposing to set up a cancer hospital as a non-profit charitable institution, it was decided to seek allotment of land from the Government of Telangana.

30.7. Reference has been made to Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, which provides for allotment of land for any suitable public purpose. Reference has also been made to the Government Land Allotment Policy adopted by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. It is stated that in case of land allotment to a trust, the proposal for allotment should come through the Telangana State Land Management Authority.

30.8. Respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation submitted representation to respondent No.1 on 20.08.2015 and 02.04.2016 requesting for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.15.48 guntas in Serilingampally Mandal on lease basis for construction of hospital for cancer and other life threatening diseases and also for setting up of a medicare centre. Respondent No.10 assured the State Government that 25% of the beds would also be free of charge for the poor and 40% of the outpatients would be treated free of charge. While respondent No.10 would continue to be a non-profit organisation, the remaining patients would be charged on cost basis so that the hospital as well as the Trust could sustain themselves.

30.9. In accordance with the Government Land Allotment Policy, Collector of Ranga Reddy District submitted proposal dated 23.09.2016 to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommending allotment of land to 46 respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration scrutinised the proposal and placed the same before the Telangana State Land Management Authority. Telangana State Land Management Authority in its meeting held on 04.04.2017 recommended allotment of land to Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease rental basis.

30.10. Complying with the request of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Collector of Ranga Reddy District submitted proposal on 03.05.2017 regarding leasing out of land to Sai Sindhu Foundation for establishing a cancer hospital. On 15.05.2017, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration forwarded the recommendations of Telangana State Land Management Authority to respondent No.1 for issuance of appropriate order. 30.11. On 03.06.2017, respondent No.1 called upon the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to collect details relating to the cancer hospital proposed to be set up 47 by Sai Sindhu Foundation. Respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation thereafter submitted project report on 09.06.2017 relating to establishment of a cancer hospital. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide letter dated 01.07.2017 forwarded the project report to respondent No.1 and requested respondent No.1 to take a decision on allotment of land to respondent No.10. Respondent No.1 vide Memo dated 22.07.2017 had requested Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to submit a report providing details of the basic value of land situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 30.12. Respondent No.1 and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration requested the Collector of Ranga Reddy District on 23.08.2017 and again on 08.10.2017 to submit a revised proposal for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 instead of Acs.15.00 to respondent No.10. Following the same, Collector of Ranga Reddy District 48 submitted revised proposal for allotment of Acs.10.00 of land to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration thereafter placed the revised proposal of the Collector before Telangana State Land Management Authority on 29.10.2017. After detailed deliberation, Telangana State Land Management Authority approved the revised proposal on 21.12.2017 and submitted the same to respondent No.1 for approval. 30.13. After examining the recommendations of Telangana State Land Management Authority and other concerned departments, Council of Ministers for the State of Telangana decided to allot land admeasuring Acs.15.00 by resolution dated 14.03.2018. This was followed by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 allotting land admeasuring Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District to respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation. 49 While allotting the land, Government stipulated the following conditions for compliance by respondent No.10:

• That 25% "in-patients" (IP) who are poor shall be treated free of cost;

• 40% of "out-patients" (OP) who are poor shall be treated free of cost;

• 25% discount shall be given in each bill for all in- patients admitted under all Government sponsored schemes like Arogya Sree, Employees Health Scheme etc. 30.14. That apart, other conditions were also imposed like completion of hospital building within two years from the date of taking over possession of the land; monitoring of utilisation of the government land by the concerned department; submission of monthly report by respondent No.10 to the Director of Medical Health and District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by forwarding details of inpatients and outpatients who have been treated free under government schemes. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 allotting land to 50 the extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.

As a follow up measure, Collector, Ranga Reddy District directed the Deputy Collector on 31.03.2018 to handover possession of the allotted land to respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation.

30.15. Sai Sindhu Foundation made a representation dated 04.04.2018 requesting the government for change in the orientation of the land allotted so that maximum space could be utilised for construction of hospital. Collector of Ranga Reddy District wrote two letters dated 14.04.2018 and 07.06.2018 to respondent No.1. By the first letter, he sought for clarification regarding the lease amount to be paid by respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation. By the second letter, he sought for approval of respondent No.1 to handover land with the changed orientation to Sai Sindhu Foundation. By Memo dated 02.08.2018, respondent No.1 approved reorientation of the land and 51 also clarified the lease amount to be collected from Sai Sindhu Foundation. It was thereafter that Collector directed the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar on 03.08.2018 to handover possession of the reoriented land to respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation following which the latter took over physical possession of the land on 06.08.2018.

30.16. Collector of Ranga Reddy District calculated the lease amount payable by Sai Sindhu Foundation on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989, whereby land was allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital and arrived at an annual lease amount of Rs.1,47,743.00 to be paid by Sai Sindhu Foundation. This was confirmed by respondent No.1 on 11.01.2019. Respondents No.10 and 11 have asserted that the entire exercise leading to allotment of land to respondent No.10 for the purpose of establishing the cancer hospital is completely in consonance with public policy and accords with the constitutional goals and 52 directives set out for the State. The allotment is not for any entrepreneurial activity or for any commercial undertaking. The allotment favours establishment of better medical care facilities in the State by encouraging private philanthropy for public objectives.

30.17. Respondents No.10 and 11 have also contended that petitioners have no locus or any right to question a policy decision of the government. It is further stated that financial consideration is not always the sole criteria in any endeavour of the State Government. Because of the philanthropic nature of the project, concessional lease rentals were fixed which received the approval of the Cabinet.

30.18. Respondent No.10 has promised to provide for 1080 beds in the proposed hospital in two phases, the first phase providing for 575 beds approximately. That apart, the hospital is being built conforming to the guidelines of National Board of Hospital Accreditation. The hospital 53 would evolve into an integrated health centre and there would be a Dharamshala also to provide subsidised accommodation to the patients and their attendants. 30.19. Denying all the allegations made by the petitioners, respondents No.10 and 11 seek dismissal of the writ petition.

31. Respondent No.12 has filed a separate counter affidavit. Stand taken in the counter affidavit is that respondent No.11 is the founder chairman of respondent No.12. Respondent No.11 has nurtured respondent No.12 in such a manner that today it has emerged as one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world providing direct and indirect employment to about 20,000 people. It is the pioneer in the production of anti-retroviral drugs that are meant for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Respondent No.12 led by respondent No.11 have initiated several beneficial programmes for the public under its corporate social responsibility initiatives.

31.1. Respondent No.12 is in no way concerned with the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.10 which is a public charitable trust. Respondent No.12 will not use any portion of the subject land allotted to respondent No.10. 31.2. While acknowledging that respondent No.12 was allotted Acs.75.00 of land in Special Economic Zone of Jadcherla, where respondent No.12 has established pharmaceutical units by investing about Rs.1,100.00 crores and providing employment, direct and indirect, to about 2000 people, the other allegations made by the petitioners have been denied.

31.3. It is clarified that respondent No.12 is not engaged either in the construction or management of the proposed cancer hospital by respondent No.10. Entire construction and management will be undertaken by respondent No.10. Therefore, petitioners have erroneously impleaded Hetero Group of Companies as respondent No.12 in the writ 55 petition. Respondent No.12 is not a beneficiary of the land allotted to respondent No.10. Thus, it is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the writ petition.

32. Petitioners have filed separate rejoinder affidavits to the counter affidavits of respondent No.1 and respondents No.10 and 11.

32.1. While reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, petitioners have asserted that respondents could not disclose any valid and tenable reason justifying grant of Acs.15.00 of land by way of lease in favour of respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation. While acknowledging that government lands could be granted to trusts and societies on concessional rates keeping in view welfare of the people, it is however contended that even such allocation of land must be on a reasonable basis and done in a transparent and equitable manner. Even if land is allotted to institutions with a social objective, the allotment must be in a manner consistent with principles of equality 56 and non-arbitrariness. There is no justification for allotment of prime land to respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation at a throwaway price without conducting public auction or issuing public notice inviting similar proposals from other charitable institutions for setting up a hospital on the same terms. Respondent No.10 i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation does not have any experience in the field of establishment and managing hospitals. Such allocation of land in favour of respondent No.10 therefore reeks of favouritism and cannot be countenanced. As against recommendations of Telangana State Land Management Authority for Acs.10.00 of land to respondent No.10, the State has allotted Acs.15.00 of land without following the Government Land Allotment Policy under G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. Shockingly, while fixing the annual lease rental, the State has applied the same yardstick while allotting land to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital vide G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989, which was made thirty years back. This itself indicates 57 complete abdication of responsibility by the State and non- application of mind.

32.2. It is contended that despite claims to the contrary, the proposed cancer hospital is intended to be a profit making venture as only 25% of the inpatients are earmarked for the poor people; likewise, 40% of the outpatients.

32.3. Petitioners have placed on record certain documents which they have obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. These include letter dated 22.04.2016 issued by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited to put the identified lands for open auction sale which included the subject land; proceedings dated 03.05.2017 of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District wherein it was mentioned that Telangana State Land Management Authority in its meeting held on 04.04.2017 had recommended allotment of land to respondent No.10 on lease basis as per prevailing market value; letter of 58 Chief Secretary dated 15.05.2017 confirming the proceedings dated 03.05.2017 determining market value at Rs.75,000.00 per square yard and for grant of lease to respondent No.10 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012; letter dated 02.08.2017 of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District to the Special Chief Secretary scaling down the land value from Rs.75,000.00 per square yard to Rs.50.00 per square yard by taking the basic value as of 1989 etc. Petitioners have contended that in addition to the loss of about Rs.5,346.00 crores to the exchequer, no rational principle was followed for allotment of land to respondent No.10 without any public notice or advertisement, thus completely eliminating the process of competitive bidding raising serious questions of probity in the decision making. Even if the State land is to be allotted for a public purpose, such allotment must be transparent and follow a reasonable process.

33. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the manner in which the State has granted prime land to respondent No.10 that too for a pittance is highly questionable. The decision making process is completely flawed and reflects extraneous considerations and non-application of mind. There is no material on record to suggest or to show that the State had applied its mind to various factors and thereafter granted the land to respondent No.10 on lease basis for a negligible amount.

33.1. The irrationality of the entire exercise is discernible from the fact that it is respondent No.10 who had made a request to the State Government for allotment of a particular plot of land to set up cancer hospital in respect of which it has no previous experience. In fact, though respondent No.10 claims to be a charitable institution it has no experience of running any hospital not to speak of any specialised hospital or cancer hospital. Though the 60 Collector had suggested fixation of the land value at the market rate, the same was completely abandoned and the land was allotted to respondent No.10 as per rate granted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital almost thirty years ago. Interestingly, respondent No.10 sought for change of the land though within the same area which was promptly accepted by the State without any demur. This only goes to show an unhealthy nexus between respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 on the one hand and the higher officials of the State Government on the other hand. It is true that in all cases the State cannot have a rigid and an inflexible land policy. In an appropriate case, land can be given to a deserving person or entity at a concessional rate. State being trustee of the resources of the State has to ensure that the resources are utilised properly and for the benefit of the public at large. It is evident that the hospital being constructed by respondent No.10 would be a profitable enterprise as only 25% of the in-patients would be given free treatment so also 40% of the out-patients; besides 61 some concessions granted for government schemes. Dispensing with or granting State largesse in such a brazen manner throwing all norms of probity and transparency to the wind is unacceptable. This is contrary to law.

33.2. Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that though petitioners have computed the estimated value of the land and the loss suffered by the State, he would not like to harp on the figures. But certainly it is a case of huge loss caused to the State on account of granting of State largess to respondent No.10 in a most non-transparent and arbitrary manner. There was no occasion or invitation extended to other parties for utilisation of such land for setting up of a hospital. On the mere application of respondent No.10 prime land has been allotted to it at a nominal lease rent of Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum for a lease period of sixty years when according to the petitioners the total rental value for the said period for 62 the said plot of land would work out to more than Rs.5,000.00 crores.

33.3. Calling upon the State to interfere in the matter, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal 1;

(2) Hazi T.M.Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation 2;

(3) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyardhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3;

(4) New India Public School v. HUDA 4;

(5) Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies 5;

(6) Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh 6;

(1987) 2 SCC 295 2 (1988) 1 SCC 166 3 (1991) 1 SCC 212 4 (1996) 5 SCC 510 5 (2009) 6 SCC 171 6 (2011) 5 SCC 29 63 (7) Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 7;

(8) Natural Resources Allocation, in Re: Special Reference 8;

(9) Usha Mehta v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 9;

(10) Institute of Law, Chandigarh v. Neeraj Sharma 10;

and (11) Bihar State Housing Board v. Radha Ballabh Health Care and Research Institute (P) Ltd. 11

34. Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State, at the outset, submits that petitioners have no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. None of the averments made by the petitioners are based on any thorough research or relevant material flows from any authority. Though petitioner No.1 claims to be a medical anthropologist and the second petitioner, a lawyer, they 7 (2012) 3 SCC 1 8 (2012) 10 SCC 1 9 (2012) 12 SCC 419 10 (2015) 1 SCC 720 11 (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1188 64 lack the expertise required to assess and pass judgment on the present policy decision of the government. 34.1. G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 lays down the land allotment policy of the State. Present allotment of land to respondent No.10 is in accordance with the principles laid down in the said land allotment policy. The said policy clearly says that land may be allotted for public purposes, health etc. The policy further provides for allotting land to private companies for public purpose. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 envisages that land can be allotted for various purposes including social and welfare activities. Land can also be allotted keeping the above principles in mind at concessional rate. 34.2. He submits that Government took into consideration the well worked model in this aspect i.e., Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital as the relevant concessional policy and followed G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 and laid down 65 the conditions similar to those laid down in the said G.O.Ms.No.484 in the case of the present lessee as well. 34.3. He submits that contrary to the claim of the petitioners, the land allotment policy of the State itself provides for leasing out land at concessional prices by imposing necessary conditions. Thus, he would contend that allotment of land by way of lease at a concessional price as has been done by the State in the present case is not in violation of the land allotment policy. 34.4. He submits that it is true that the Revenue Divisional Officer had submitted proposal for alienation of land in favour of respondent No.10 on payment of market value i.e., Rs.75,000/- per square yard keeping in view the location of the site, so also the Joint Collector, which was forwarded by the Telangana State Land Management Authority. He would submit that the recommendation was made on consideration of sale and not granting of land on 66 lease. No other aspect was considered by the aforesaid revenue authorities.

34.5. Further, though the Telangana State Land Management Authority had recommended allotment of Acs.10.00 land, government after thoroughly examining the issue and considering all relevant aspects including the project report submitted by respondent No.10, i.e., Sai Sindhu Foundation as well as the earlier successful policy of the government with regard to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital and the long term interest of the public decided to allot land to respondent No.10 on non-profit basis by way of lease i.e., on the same terms and conditions as in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital. The cabinet after due application of mind and in its wisdom has decided to allot the land in the above manner to respondent No.10. Merely because the Council of Ministers did not act on the recommendations of the District Collector or the Telangana State Land Management Authority and deviated therefrom, 67 it cannot be said that the decision making process was flawed or that there is no application of mind; rather there was due application of mind by the State.

34.6. Learned Advocate General submits that as per procedure contemplated under paragraph 4(v)(g) of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, applications may be made directly to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and it further lays down the procedure to be followed thereafter. Managing Trustee of Sai Sindhu Foundation Dr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy addressed letters dated 20.08.2015 and 02.04.2016 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister requesting for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.15.48 guntas in Serilingampally Mandal on lease basis for construction of hospital for treatment of cancer and other life threatening diseases. After following the procedure laid down therein, the Cabinet which is the ultimate decision making authority on due application of mind decided to allot the land to Sai Sindhu Foundation. While taking the 68 above decision, Cabinet took into consideration the laudable proposal of Sai Sindhu Foundation viz., that it proposes to set up a state of the art cancer and other life threatening diseases hospital having 540 beds in Hyderabad to provide affordable medicare to the needy cancer and other patients; the hospital would be built in two phases with 540 + 540 (1080) beds with around 180 critical care beds and 12 operation theatres with a thrust on cancer; the total expenditure that would be incurred for construction of the cancer hospital would be to the tune of Rs.438.05 crores; further the hospital complex would provide residential accommodation to key medical and para-medical personnel besides providing for dormitory accommodation for attendants of patients. He submits that considering the above and the investment being made by respondent No.10 to provide for affordable health care to the public, the State Government decided to allot the land to Sai Sindhu Foundation at a concessional lease rent by imposing certain terms and conditions, such as: i) the 69 lease period shall be initially for thirty (30) years, renewable for another period of thirty (30) years;

ii) the lease amount shall be collected as per the rate in G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989, which was fixed for Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital, for the first three (3) years, whereafter there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental every three (3) years till the end of the lease period;

iii) 25% of the inpatients (IP), who are the poor people, shall be treated free of cost; iv) 40% of outpatients (OP), who are poor, shall be treated free of cost; v) 25% discount shall be given in each bill for all in-patients (IP), admitted under all government sponsored schemes like Aarogyasree, Employees Health Scheme etc. 34.7. Learned Advocate General would therefore contend that merely because the lease rental is perceived to be at a lower figure in the estimation of the petitioners, that would not render the land allotment bad in law.

34.8. Learned Advocate General has also filed written submissions and a compilation of judgments in support of his submissions comprising the following decisions:

i) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 12;

      ii)       Sachidanand Pandey (supra);

      iii)      Union of India v. Jain Sabha 13;

      iv)       M.P Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh 14;

      v)        Netai Bag v. State of W.B. 15;

      vi)       Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v.

      State of Gujarat 16;

      vii)      Odisha IIDC Ltd. v. Pitabasa Mishra 17;

      viii)     Babubhai     Meghajibhai    Shah   v.      State   of

      Gujarat 18;

      ix)       Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. 19;



12
   (1980) 4 SCC 1
13
   (1997) 1 SCC 164
14
   (1997) 7 SCC 592
15
    (2000) 8 SCC 262
16
   (2014) 4 SCC 156
17
   (2018) 3 SCC 732
18
   2017 SCC Online Guj 299
19
   (2018) 4 SCC 218
                                     71




         x)       Union of India v. Moolchand Kharaiti Ram

         Trust 20; and

         xi)      J.S. Luthra Academy v. State of J&K 21.

35. Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.10 and 11 submits that he would not like to cast aspersions on the credentials of the petitioners.

However, he has found fault with the petitioners in adopting a very narrow and pedantic approach. He submits that unlike the petitioners the State has not looked at the issue from the narrow prism of money only. The overarching aspect that the State has looked at is public interest. It is from the public interest perspective that the allotment of land by the State in favour of respondent No.10 Sai Sindhu Foundation should be looked at. It would not be proper to adopt a mechanical or technical approach.

(2018) 8 SCC 321 21 (2018) 18 SCC 65 72 35.1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Managing Trustee of Sai Sindhu Foundation has rich experience in pharmaceutical industry. Because of a personal tragedy suffered by him, he is driven by a social motive to provide world class healthcare facilities particularly in relation to cancer and other life threatening diseases for the public. It is a charitable purpose, but at the same time the hospital has to sustain itself. The entire treatment in the hospital cannot be made free of cost. Therefore, to enable respondent No.10 to continue with the public service it has been decided that while 40% of the outpatients would be treated free of cost, similar benefit would be extended to 25% of the inpatients. That apart, substantial discount would be provided to patients availing various schemes of the government. Additionally, a dharamsala would be constructed to house the attendants accompanying the patients.

35.2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that present is not the only instance of a public private partnership initiative in the healthcare centre. Various other States, notably Odisha, has involved private sector to provide affordable healthcare to the public. State Government has facilitated the present private investment in the healthcare sector by providing land. In such circumstances, auction or tender for allotment of land cannot be the sole method or the sole criteria.

35.3. Learned Senior Counsel has also emphasised on the fact that no personal malafides have been attributed to the respondents. He submits that if the conscience of the court is clear that the present allotment of land by way of lease to Sai Sindhu Foundation is in the public interest, where commercial value of the land is only one of the considerations, then there would be no good reason to entertain the public interest litigation. He submits that it is purely within the domain of policy of the State 74 Government to provide for a conducive investment environment in priority sectors like health by making land available to the investor. Emphasis of Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel is that one has to take a holistic picture and not look at it only from the point of view of high land value. Looked at from such a perspective there is no irrationality or unreasonableness in the allotment of land by the State to respondent No.10. As a matter of fact, he would submit that government has ensured that it continues to remain the owner of the land. That is why, instead of outright allocation of land to respondent No.10, government has opted for lease, that too for a limited period of thirty years extendable by another period of thirty years. He submits that grievance of the petitioners is misconceived and therefore no interference is called for.

35.4. While concluding Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.10, 11 and 12 submits 75 that construction of the hospital is going on now and the hospital may be ready for inauguration by September, 2023. He has therefore requested the court to look into this aspect of the matter as well.

36. In his reply submissions, Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 and submits that it is clearly a deviation from the earlier G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015. This has resulted in a huge loss to the State exchequer.

36.1. Reiterating his previous contentions, he submits that allotment of land to respondent No.10 was not done in a transparent manner. There was no public auction as to allotment of the land. Recommendations of the Collector and the Telangana Land Management Authority were simply brushed aside. Insofar respondent No.10 is concerned, it was established only in the year 2014 with no 76 previous experience either in construction or in management of hospital. The hospital that is being constructed by respondent No.10 is not a completely charitable hospital. It is evident that respondent No.10 is establishing a profit making hospital as a business venture which though is a legitimate exercise but for the same, government land could not have been given almost free of cost. It is also not the case of the State that the land allotted by it would be in the form of its equity participation in the hospital project. Therefore, it is clearly a case of abuse of State's largesse which has been frowned upon by the constitutional courts time and again. In addition to the decisions already relied upon, learned Senior Counsel has placed on record and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Humanity v. State of West Bengal 22.

37. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the court. 22

(2011) 8 SCR 653 77

38. Facts lie within a narrow compass. As noted above, the turn of events started with submission of an application by respondent No.10 on 20.08.2015 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Telangana requesting land allotment on lease basis for setting up of cancer and other life threatening diseases medicare centre. It was mentioned in the said application that respondent No.10 is a public charitable trust set up in the year 2014. Objective of the trust is to set up a tertiary medicare centre of excellence with state of the art world class infrastructure, attended by world renowned doctors. It was pointed out that land available with the Government of Telangana in Survey Nos.5/2 to 5/23 of Izzatnagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was impeccably suitable for the project. The application mentioned that 25% of the beds in the medicare centre would be made free of charge for the poor and 40% of the outpatients would also be treated free of charge. Therefore, respondent No.10 requested the government to allot land to 78 an extent of Acs.15.48 guntas in Survey Nos.5/2 to 5/23 of Izzatnagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on lease basis. This was followed by another request letter of respondent No.10 dated 02.04.2016 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Telangana. While restating what was requested vide the initial application dated 20.08.2015, it was however pointed out that respondent No.10 came to know of some encumbrance concerns in the land at Survey Nos.5/2 to 5/23 of Izzatnagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, respondent No.10 requested for allotment of land at Survey No.41 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.

39. It appears that after submission of such proposal by respondent No.10, the same was processed by the government. Following letter of Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 15.06.2016 requesting processing of allocation proposal of an extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey 79 No.41/14 situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10, the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Revenue Department vide letter dated 29.06.2016 requested the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District to do the needful. Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, wrote to the Collector of Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings dated 26.08.2016 that the land sought for by respondent No.10 is located in a prime locality very near to Hitech City and 500 metres away from the main road. Prevailing market value would be between Rs.55,000.00 to Rs.60,000.00 per square yard for residential and Rs.70,000.00 to Rs.80,000.00 per square yard for commercial purpose. Prevailing market value of the land would be Rs.33.70 crores per acre. Therefore, he recommended Rs.75,000.00 per square yard keeping in view the location of the land.

39.1. Following the same, Collector and District Magistrate of Ranga Reddy District submitted proposal dated 23.09.2016 to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommending allotment of land to an extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10 for establishment of cancer hospital at Hyderabad. By the aforesaid proceedings, the Collector and District Magistrate stated that the mentioned documents were required to be submitted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. While submitting the aforesaid proposal, the Collector and District Magistrate informed that the present market value would be Rs.75,000.00 per square yard as per the report submitted by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer.

40. A meeting of the Telangana State Land Management Authority was held on 04.04.2017. The meeting discussed 81 allotment of government land to different government departments and private organisations for various purposes. At serial No.11, the proposal was for allocation of government land (land resumed from HMDA) to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10 for establishment of cancer hospital. Collector of Ranga Reddy District explained the proposal and informed that the land is primely located and highly valuable. According to the Managing Director of Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, the nearby land when auctioned could fetch Rs.59,917.00 per square yard. Be that as it may, Special Chief Secretary, Incharge of Medical and Health, gave consent for allotment of land to respondent No.10 on lease basis. Telangana State Land Management Authority after due deliberation resolved to recommend as follows:

a. The proposal for allotment of government land on lease basis to an extent of Ac.15.00 gts. situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District in favour of M/s. Sai Sindhu Foundation for establishment of Cancer Hospital is recommended on payment of lease rental based on prevailing market value given the purpose/gross nature of the land.

b. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District is directed to furnish a detailed note along with the facts of the case and specific recommendation.

41. Thus, Telangana State Land Management Authority recommended that land to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, may be allotted in favour of respondent No.10 on lease basis for establishment of cancer hospital on payment of lease rental based on the prevailing market value.

42. Following the same, Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, submitted proposal before the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide proceedings dated 03.05.2017 for 83 allotment of Acs.15.00 of land (equivalent to 72,600 square yards) in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10 for establishment of a world class cancer and other life threatening diseases management medicare centre. The Collector made the recommendation for allotment of land on lease basis on payment of lease rental on prevailing market value at the rate of Rs.75,000.00 per square yard. The lease rental would be 10% of the prevailing market value as fixed by the Telangana State Land Management Authority/competent authority in terms of paragraph 3(d) of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. As per the recommendation, the lease period at the first instance should not exceed 33 years though it can be extended on mutually agreed terms and conditions.

42.1. Responding to the same, Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration wrote to the Special 84 Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Revenue (Assignment) Department vide proceedings dated 15.05.2017 forwarding therewith the minutes of the meeting of the Telangana State Land Management Authority dated 04.04.2017 and the proposal of the Collector to the government for issuance of suitable order. While forwarding the same to the government, the Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration observed that the need for such a large extent of land for the purpose of establishment of cancer hospital may also be reassessed. In the meanwhile, respondent No.10 submitted project report to set up a cancer and other life threatening diseases hospital in Hyderabad before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. 42.2. Government vide memo dated 03.06.2017 stated that the matter was examined in consultation with the Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department. The latter mentioned about the land area requirement etc., for 85 establishment of hospital as per Indian Public Health Standards. It was mentioned that in the application of respondent No.10 no details were available for assessment of the land to be allotted. It appears that there was a revised proposal pursuant to proceedings of the Collector dated 15.06.2017, proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 01.07.2017 and 22.07.2017 for allotment of Acs.10.00 to Acs.11.00 of land to respondent No.10 for establishment of the cancer hospital instead of Acs.15.00 as was earlier recommended. In this connection, government had issued a memo dated 23.08.2017. All these were forwarded to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District by the Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide proceedings dated 08.10.2017 with a request to furnish the revised proposal for allotment of Acs.10.00 to 11.00 of land for establishment of the cancer hospital instead of Acs.15.00 as was proposed earlier. It may mentioned that vide memo dated 23.08.2017, Special Chief Secretary to the 86 Government of Telangana in the Revenue (Assignment-II) Department had drawn the attention of the Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to obtain remarks/recommendations of the Telangana State Land Management Authority again on the revised proposal for allotment of Acs.10.00 to 11.00 of land for establishment of cancer hospital instead of Acs.15.00 as was recommended earlier.

43. Collector of Ranga Reddy District informed Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide proceedings dated 29.10.2017 mentioning that in view of the observations made by the Special Chief Secretary that the need for allotment of such large extent of land may also be reassessed, revised proposal was called for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 to 11.00 for establishment of cancer hospital instead of Acs.15.00. As per the location sketch, the marked area as 'A' admeasuring Acs.10.00 was 87 proposed for establishment of the cancer hospital. Therefore, a revised proposal for allotment of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 (marked area as 'A' in the sketch) instead of Acs.15.00 as was recommended earlier in favour of respondent No.10 for establishment of cancer hospital on lease basis was forwarded.

44. It appears that the revised proposal for allotment of Acs.10.00 of land instead of Acs.15.00 of land in favour of respondent No.10 on lease basis was placed before the Telangana State Land Management Authority (briefly, 'the Authority' hereinafter) on 21.12.2017. The Authority made the following recommendations:

1. The Collector Rangareddy District has briefed about the proposals as follows:

a) Earlier the proposals for Land Allotment are placed before the TSLMA on 04-04-2017 wherein it was recommended for allotment of land to an extent of Ac.15.00 gts. situated in Sy.No.41/4 at Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Rangareddy District in favour of M/s. Sai Sindhu Foundation on lease basis, for establishment of cancer hospital only.

b) Accordingly, proposals were sent to the government.

c) Government in turn requested to obtain the remarks of TSLMA again for allotment for only Cancer Hospital.

d) Accordingly, Collector furnished revised proposal for Ac.10-00 gts and recommended for only Cancer Hospital.

e) As per the Detailed Project Report (DPR) the foundation mentions for "State of art cancer and other life threatening diseases hospital". As per Medical & Health Department recommendation, it is mentioned as "utility for cancer and life threatening diseases Medicare Centre". Earlier, TSLMA recommended for only Cancer Hospital. The allotment is recommended by Collector, Rangareddy District on lease basis.

f) The market value is Rs.75,000/- per sq. yard and basic value of the land is Rs.30,000/- per sq. yard.

g) The Collector has recommended Rs.75,000/- per sq. yard.

2. The Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department informed that as per the guidelines prescribed by the Government of India, the extent is recommended to be reduced from Ac.15.00 gts to Ac.10-00 gts.

3. After detailed deliberation the authority resolved to recommend for allotment of land in Sy.No.41/14/2 extent Ac.10.00 gts in Khanamet (V), 89 Serilingampally (M) on lease basis on payment of lease rental as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.571, Rev (Assn.I) Dept, dt.14.9.12 read with G.O.Ms.No.218 dt. 1.12.2015 in favour of M/s. Sai Sindhu Foundation, specifically for establishment of Cancer Hospital and not for any other purposes.

45. As per fresh recommendations of the Authority, it was resolved to allot Acs.10.00 of land to respondent No.10 in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal on lease basis on payment of lease rental as per conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 read with G.O.Ms.No.218 dated 01.12.2015.

46. Based on the above recommendations of the Authority, Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration wrote to the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Revenue (Assignment) Department, vide proceedings dated 27.12.2017 forwarding therewith proposal of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, along with minutes of the meeting of the Authority held on 90 21.12.2017 to the government for issuance of suitable order(s) as to allotment of Acs.10.00 of land situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10 Sai Sindhu Foundation specifically for establishment of cancer hospital on lease basis.

47. Following submission of revised proposal, Government of Telangana in the Revenue (Assignment.II) Department issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 22.03.2018. It is stated that after careful examination of the revised proposal, government decided to allot government land to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.10 Sai Sindhu Foundation for construction of cancer hospital on non- profit basis. The allotment of land is on lease basis and on the same terms and conditions as applicable in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital. The allotment of land on 91 lease basis has been made subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

48. It is this G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 which has been impugned in the present proceeding. Relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 reads as follows:

9. Government, after careful examination having considered the proposal in detail has decided for allotment of government land to an extent of Ac.15.00 guntas situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, in favour of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation, for construction of Hospital for Cancer and other life threatening diseases, on non-

profit basis, on lease basis, on the same terms and conditions as applicable in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital and accordingly hereby order for allotment of Government land to an extent of Ac.15.00 guntas situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, in favour of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation, for construction of Hospital for Cancer and other life threatening diseases, on non- profit basis, on lease basis, subject to the following conditions:

i. The lease period shall be initially for thirty (30) years, renewable for another period of thirty (30) years.

ii. The lease amount shall be collected as per the rate in G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Dept., dated 26.05.1989, wherein, lease amount was fixed for Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital, for the first three (3) years and there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every three (3) years till the end of the lease period.

iii. 25% of the "In Patients (IP)", who are the poor people, shall be treated free of cost. iv. 40% of Out-Patients (OP), who are poor, shall be treated free of cost.

v.      25% discount shall be given in each bill for
        all   In-patients     (IP), admitted under all
        government           sponsored     schemes      like

Aarogyasree, Employees Health Scheme etc., vi. The lease rent shall be paid by the lessee per annum as fixed above and before January 10th of every year and the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury through proper Head of Account.

vii. Hospital building shall be completed within two (2) years from the date of putting the foundation in possession of the land.

viii. The primary responsibility of monitoring and utilization of government land allotted to various organizations vest with the 93 concerned Departments. Hence, the Director of Health shall ensure the development of land, management agreements and progress of implementation of project and also to monitor the utilization of land.

ix. No mortgage of the land without the prior approval of the government.

x. The management of proposed hospital shall submit a monthly report to the Director of Health and the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, with the details of "In Patients (IP) and Out-Patients (OP)", who have been treated freely under the above conditions, failing which, the District Collector shall call for explanation; if he is not satisfied, he shall initiate proceedings for resumption of the land.

xi. The land shall be used for the purpose for which it is allotted and not for any other purposes.

xii. Any violation of the said conditions will automatically cancel the lease and the said land will be reverted back to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, without any prior notice thereof.

xiii. Other usual conditions laid under BSO-23 & utilization of land as per BSO-24, as applicable;

10. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Director of Health, TS., Hyderabad, shall take necessary action, accordingly.

11. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance (EBS-VII) Department, vide their U.O.No.15806- A/355/EBS-VII/Rev/2017, dated 28.12.2017.

49. From the above, it is evident that while the revised proposal was for Acs.10.00 of land, government decided to allot Acs.15.00 of land to respondent No.10. While the proposal as well as the revised proposal was for allotting the land as per the market value, which was calculated at Rs.75,000.00 per square yard, government decided to allot the land on lease basis stating that the lease amount would be as per rate in G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 wherein lease amount was fixed for Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital. The lease amount would be the same as in G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 for the first three years which would be increased at the rate of 5% thereafter for every three years till the end of the lease period which is 95 initially for thirty years renewable for another period of thirty years.

50. Respondent No.10 submitted a representation dated 04.04.2018 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for change in subdivision location sketch in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village in Serilingampally Village. By way of the said representation, respondent No.10 requested to change the subdivision location sketch of the land for the reasons mentioned in the representation. The change of location was requested primarily to meet the design of the hospital and to ensure maximum space utility.

51. Collector of Ranga Reddy District wrote to the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana in the Revenue Department vide proceedings dated 14.04.2018. In this connection, Collector pointed out that as per G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989, lease amount for land to an extent of Acs.7.35 guntas in Survey No.346/1 of 96 Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, in favour of Smt. Nandamuri Basavataraka Rama Rao Memorial Cancer Foundation was Rs.50,000.00 per annum for the first three years with 5% increase in the lease rental every three years thereafter till the end of the lease period. Collector mentioned that land was allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital in the year 1989. Land allotted to Sai Sindhu Foundation i.e., respondent No.10 is in the year 2018. Market value of both the lands has varied from the year 1989 to the year 2018. It was pointed out that prevailing market value of the land allotted to respondent No.10 for commercial use would be in the range of Rs.70,000.00 to Rs.80,000.00 per square yard. Attention of the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana was drawn to paragraph 3(h)(d) of G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.218 dated 01.12.2015 which says that lease rental would be 10% of the prevailing market value per annum as fixed by the competent authority which should be revised after every five years and 97 refixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of the revision. Therefore, Collector sought for clarification from the Special Chief Secretary as to whether lease amount of Rs.50,000.00 per annum mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.484, dated 26.05.1989 would be applicable or to issue clear instructions as to what would be the lease amount for the land to the extent of Acs.15.00 allotted to respondent No.10. This was followed by another letter of the Collector dated 07.06.2018.

52. Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration wrote letter dated 07.07.2018 to the Government in the Revenue (Assignment.II) Department on the above aspect and also regarding change of alignment of land requested by respondent No.10.

53. Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana in the Revenue (Assignment.II) Department issued Memo dated 02.08.2018 conveying that Government had ordered that the land admeasuring Acs.15.00 situated 98 in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District as shown in Map-C should be handed over to respondent No.10 instead of land shown in Map-B as previously proposed by the Collector. Collector of Ranga Reddy District was requested to calculate the lease amount per annum in respect of the allotted land proportionately to the extent of land taking into consideration the present lease amount charged on the rate of Rs.50,000.00 per annum with 5% annual increase for every three years as fixed in the case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital vide G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 and to communicate the lease amount so calculated to the government for taking further action. Relevant portion of the Memo dated 02.08.2018 reads as follows:

4. Government, after careful examination of the matter, hereby order that, the land to an extent of Ac.15-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, as shown in Map-C (prepared by the DC & Tahsildar, 99 Serilingampally basing on the TSIIC layout), be handed over to M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation instead of the land to an extent of Ac.15-00 guntas shown in Map 'B' (as previously proposed by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District in his letter dated 29.10.2017), subject to fulfillment of all the conditions as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 22.03.2018.

5. Further, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is requested to calculate the lease amount per annum in respect of the above land (i.e., to an extent of Ac.15-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District) leased out in favour of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation, proportionately to the extent of land, duly keeping in view, the present lease amount charged on the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum on 5% increase of lease rent for every 3 years, as fixed in case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital for an extent of Ac.7.35 guntas vide G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 26.05.1989; and communicate the lease amount so calculated, to the government, for taking further action.

54. It was thereafter that the Collector of Ranga Reddy District issued proceedings dated 03.08.2018 withdrawing the previous proceedings allotting land to respondent No.10 as per Map-B and directing the Deputy Collector and 100 Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal to handover physical possession of the allotted land to an extent of Acs.15.00 in Survey No.41/14/2 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal as shown in Map-C to respondent No.10 for construction of cancer hospital.

55. Thereafter, vide panchanama dated 06.08.2018 the land was handed over to respondent No.10 in the presence of panchas and witnesses.

56. Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana in the Revenue (Assignment.II) Department issued Memo dated 11.01.2019. It appears that Collector of Ranga Reddy District vide letter dated 26.08.2018 had informed that present lease amount paid by Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital for land to an extent of Acs.7.35 guntas is Rs.77,564.00 with 5% increase of lease rent for every three years. On the above basis, present lease rent of respondent No.10 Sai Sindhu Foundation for Acs.15.00 of land works out to Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum 101 for the first three years with 5% increase in the lease rental after every three years till the end of the lease period. Government after careful examination of the matter agreed with the proposal of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to fix the lease amount at Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum for allotment of government land to an extent of Acs.15.00 on lease basis to respondent No.10. The said amount would be for the first three years and increased thereafter at the rate of 5% for every three years till the end of the lease period. Relevant portion of the Memo dated 11.01.2019 is as follows:

5. In the reference 5th cited, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District has reported that, the present lease amount being paid by the Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital is Rs.77,564/- (on the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum on 5% increase of lease rent for every (3) years) for the land to an extent of Ac.7.35 guntas as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 26.05.1989 and therefore, the present lease rent in case of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation works out to Rs.1,47,743/- per annum for the land to an extent of Ac.15-00 guntas in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally Mandal for the first (3) years and there 102 shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every (3) years, till the end of lease period as fixed in case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital in G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 26.05.1989 and requested the government to issue confirmation orders on his proposal.

6. Government, after careful examination of the matter, agree with the proposal of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to fix the lease amount Rs.1,47,743/- per annum for the government land to an extent of Ac.15-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.41/14/2 of Khanamet (V), Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District allotted in favour of M/s.Sai Sindhu Foundation for construction of Hospital for cancer and other life threatening diseases on a non-profit basis, on lease basis, for the first (3) years and there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every (3) years, till the end of lease period as fixed in case of Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital in G.O.Ms.No.484, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 26.05.1989.

57. Insofar G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 26.05.1989 of the then Government of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, it is seen that Managing Trustee of Smt. Nandamuri Basava Taraka Rama Rao Memorial Cancer Foundation had submitted a representation dated 12.02.1989 requesting the 103 government to alienate government land to an extent of Acs.9.00 for setting up of a cancer hospital in Hyderabad.

It was mentioned that a memorandum of understanding had already been entered into between the foundation and Dr. Nori.D who was the Chief of Brachy Therapy service of Sloan Kettering Cancer Memorial Hospital in New York, an NRI doctor. It was pointed out that land available in road No.6, Banjara Hills, was eminently suitable for such hospital. Government after examining the request decided to lease out Acs.7.35 guntas of land to the foundation subject to the following conditions:

i) The lease period shall be initially for 30 (thirty) years, renewable for another period of 30 (thirty) years.

ii) The lease amount shall be Rs.50,000/- per annum for the first three years and there shall be a 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every three years till the end of the lease period.

iii) 25% of the beds shall be free to the poor.

iv) 40% of the out-patients shall be treated free of cost; and 104

v) The building shall be completed in two years from the date of putting the Cancer Foundation in possession of the land;

58. Thus land was allotted to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital on lease basis initially for thirty years renewable for another thirty years. The lease amount was fixed at Rs.50,000.00 per annum for the first three years with 5% increase in the lease rental thereafter for every three years till the end of the lease period; 25% of the beds were to be kept free for the poor; and 40% of the outpatients were required to be treated free of cost etc.

59. The aforesaid land allotment was made to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital by the State when there was no land allotment policy. It appears to be an ad hoc government decision which was not questioned at that point of time.

60. Be that as it may, in order to have uniform guidelines with regard to government land to be allotted for various 105 purposes to different government departments and private organisations both in terms of extent and rate it was felt necessary by the Government that there should be a Government Land Allotment Policy. It was thereafter that Government Land Allotment Policy was framed and notified by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. It was clarified that the said Government Land Allotment Policy would supersede all existing government orders and instructions with regard to allotment of government land for various purposes to different government departments and private organisations. As per paragraph 3(b), there should be rational norms for fixing cost of land to be allotted. While fixing the cost of land to be charged, the general principles laid down in BSO-24 which take into consideration the purpose of allotment and the nature of organisation shall be followed. The allotment/alienation shall be on market value as recommended by the Collector and Andhra Pradesh Land Management Authority (now Telangana State 106 Land Management Authority), already referred to as the Authority hereinabove. Market value should be ascertained by conducting local enquiry. However, the land value shall not be less than the basic value of the land. If the market value of land is Rs.1.00 crore and below the competent officer would be the Revenue Divisional Officer; if the value is above Rs.1.00 crore then the competent officer is the Collector. The Land Allotment Policy provided for constitution of the Authority as referred to above. Insofar lease rental is concerned, it is mentioned in paragraph 3(h)(d) that lease rental would be 10% of the prevailing market value as fixed by the competent authority which shall be enhanced every five years by increasing up to 10% as fixed by the competent authority on the lease rental of the previous block of five years.

61. Government of Telangana in the Revenue (Assignment.I) Department issued G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015 substituting paragraph 3(h)(d) of the 107 Government Land Allotment Policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012. As per the substituted provision, the lease rental will be 10% of the prevailing market value per annum as fixed by the competent authority. The lease rental shall be revised every five years and refixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of revision. This provision being relevant is extracted hereunder:

Para 3(h)(d): "The lease rental will be 10% of the prevailing market value per annum as fixed by the competent authority. The lease rental shall be revised for every 5 years and re-fixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of revision."

62. Thus as per the Government Land Allotment Policy dated 14.09.2012 as amended on 01.12.2015, if government land is allotted on lease basis, then the lease rental will be 10% of the prevailing market value per annum as fixed by the competent authority which is 108 revisable every five years and re-fixed at 10% of the prevailing market value as on the date of revision.

63. From the materials on record, what is deducible is that contrary to the revised proposal of the Collector to allot Acs.10.00 of land to respondent No.10 as approved by the Authority, the State has allotted Acs.15.00 of land to respondent No.10. The land allotted by the State was not as per its discretion but as pointed out by respondent No.10. Later on, respondent No.10 sought for change of alignment of the land. Even this was agreed to by the State. That apart as against the repeated proposals of the Collector and approved by the Authority, the State did not fix the lease rental of the allotted land to respondent No.10 in terms of paragraph 3(h)(d) of G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 as substituted by G.O.Ms.No218 dated 01.12.2015. The market value of the land was fixed by the authority at Rs.75,000.00 per square yard. Instead, the State Government decided to allot Acs.15.00 of land to 109 respondent No.10 on lease basis as per lease rental fixed while allotting land to the extent of Acs.7.35 guntas to Basavatarakam Cancer Hospital in the year 1989.

G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 by which the impugned allotment has been made does not disclose any reasons for making a departure from the Government Land Allotment Policy qua the lease rental or from the revised proposal of the Collector as approved by the Authority. Since it is a non-speaking order, it does not indicate or reflect any application of mind to the above two aspects.

64. As already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, there was no Government Land Allotment Policy holding the field in the year 1989. That apart, lease rental determined in the year 1989 has been made the basis for fixing the lease rental of the land allotted to respondent No.10 in the year 2018. In other words, the lease rental has been maintained at the same level as in the year 1989 notwithstanding the fact that land has been allotted to 110 respondent No.10 thirty years thereafter when value of land in the city of Hyderabad has increased manifold. It is true that as per the Government Land Allotment Policy, government land can be sought and allotted for public purpose including setting up of educational and health institution and there is no requirement of tender or auction; nonetheless the policy postulates that if the land is allotted on lease basis then the lease rental would have to be fixed at the rate of 10% of the prevailing market value per annum (emphasis is ours) as fixed by the competent authority which is revisable after every five years. In the instant case, the competent authority has determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.70,000.00 to Rs.80,000.00 per square yard for commercial use. Extent of land proposed was Acs.10.00. As opposed to this, the State has allotted Acs.15.00 of land to respondent No.10 at the rate of Rs.1,47,743.00 per annum revisable every five years with 5% increase. Thus, prime government land has been allotted by the State to respondent No.10 almost at 111 negligible value. It is not the case that government has allotted land to respondent No.10 as some kind of private public participation with the land component being the equity share of the State. Thus, prime government land has been allotted to respondent No.10 on a platter virtually without any consideration.

65. Government is the trustee of the resources of the State. It holds the resources in trust for and on behalf of the people. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that while conferring benefits of State's resources, including land, or granting State's largesse, the public interest has to be borne in mind. In fact, it is the public interest alone which is paramount.

66. In Sachidanand Pandey (supra) Supreme Court held that State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the 112 methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though it is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Supreme Court held as follows:

40. On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the Bar the following propositions may be taken as well established: State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration.

One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing 113 should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism.

66.1. That was a case where Government of West Bengal had granted land to the Taj Group of Hotels for construction of five star hotel in Calcutta as part of the tourism policy. The land was granted on lease basis. On the facts and circumstances of that case, Supreme Court expressed satisfaction that the Government of West Bengal had acted perfectly bona fide in granting lease of the land to the Taj Group of Hotels. Supreme Court noted that the Government of West Bengal did not fail to take into account any relevant consideration. The financial interests of the State were in no way sacrificed either by not inviting tenders or holding a public auction or by adopting the "net sales" method.

67. Likewise, in New India Public School (supra) Supreme Court considered provisions of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, framed under the Haryana Urban Development 114 Authority Act, 1977, in the context of challenge to allotment of land for establishment of schools. Supreme Court observed that several modes of disposal of property have been provided, including by way of public auction, allotment or otherwise. In that context, Supreme Court observed that when the public authority discharges its public duty, the word "otherwise" would be construed to be consistent with public purpose. For this, clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules are necessary. Public authorities cannot act at their whims and fancies for any extraneous consideration. Public authorities are required to make necessary specific regulations or valid guidelines to exercise their discretionary powers; otherwise, the salutary procedure would be by public auction.

68. In the case of Meerut Development Authority (supra) Supreme Court observed that the effort made by the Meerut Development Authority to augment its financial resources and revenue cannot be said to be an 115 unreasonable decision. The struggle to get for the State full revenue of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of state-owned natural assets to the private sector. According to the Supreme Court, whenever the government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated. There is a simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets 'at a discount'. This is what the Supreme Court observed:

50. We are, however, of the opinion that the effort, if any, made by MDA to augment its financial resources and revenue itself cannot be said to be an unreasonable decision. It is well said that the struggle to get for the State the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of State-owned natural assets to the private sector. Whenever the Government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated; there is a simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets "at a discount". Most of the times the wealth of the State goes to the individuals within the country rather than to multinational corporations; still, wealth slips away that ought to belong to the nation as a whole.

116

69. Supreme Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress (supra) examined the following question:

Whether the decision of the Government of Madhya Pradesh to allot 20 acres land comprised in Khasra Nos. 82/1 and 83 of Village Bawadiya Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal to late Shri Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust (for short "the Memorial Trust")/Shri Kushabhau Thakre Training Institute (Respondent 5) without any advertisement and without inviting other similarly situated organisations/ institutions to participate in the process of allotment is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the Act") and whether modification of the Bhopal Development Plan and change of land use is ultra vires the mandate of Section 23-A of the Act are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

69.1. It was in that context Supreme Court held as follows:

65. [Ed.: Paras 65, 66 and 68 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./23/2011 dated 3-5-2011 and para 67 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./28/2011 dated 7-5- 117

2011.] . What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.

66. [Ed.: Paras 65, 66 and 68 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./23/2011 dated 3-5-2011 and para 67 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./28/2011 dated 7-5- 2011.] . We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining 118 applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

67. [Ed.: Paras 65, 66 and 68 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./23/2011 dated 3-5-2011 and para 67 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./28/2011 dated 7-5- 2011.] . This, however, does not mean that the State can never allot land to the institutions/organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or philanthropic activities or are rendering service to the society except by way of auction. Nevertheless, it is necessary to observe that once a piece of land is earmarked or identified for allotment to institutions/organisations engaged in any such activity, the actual exercise of allotment must be done in a manner consistent with the doctrine of equality. The competent authority should, as a matter of course, issue an advertisement incorporating therein the conditions of eligibility so as to enable all similarly situated eligible persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the process of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise. In a given case the Government may allot land 119 at a fixed price but in that case also allotment must be preceded by a wholesome exercise consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

68. [Ed.: Paras 65, 66 and 68 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./23/2011 dated 3-5-2011 and para 67 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./28/2011 dated 7-5- 2011.] . The allotment of land by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities to a body/organisation/ institution which carry the tag of caste, community or religion is not only contrary to the idea of secular democratic republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the society on caste or communal lines. The allotment of land to such bodies/organisations/ institutions on political considerations or by way of favouritism and/or nepotism or with a view to nurture the vote bank for future is constitutionally impermissible. 69.2. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, the State or its instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the State. Every action/decision of the State to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy which must be in the public domain. Distribution of largesse like allotment of 120 land should always be done in a fair and equitable manner. There cannot be a policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals or institutions etc., dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State. By entertaining applications from individuals, institutions etc., for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse, the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land in the form of largesse by the State would be arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While acknowledging that the State has the authority to allot land to institutions/organisations engaged in educational and other public activities, Supreme Court however cautioned that the actual exercise of allotment must be done in a manner consistent with the doctrine of equality.

121

70. In the case of Humanity (supra), Supreme Court frowned upon the practice of allotment of land dehors any advertisement or public auction. When it was contended that the allottee had bona fide intention of establishing a school, Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress (supra) and held that in order to achieve a bona fide end the means must also justify the end. Bona fide ends cannot be achieved by questionable means when the State is involved.

71. Though, learned Advocate General strenuously tried to distinguish the above judgments, we are of the view that the above decisions would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case.

72. Learned Advocate General had placed reliance on the decision in Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust (supra). Question involved in the aforesaid case was regarding validity of a circular of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi directing the private hospitals to provide 122 free treatment to the weaker sections of the society in terms of a decision of the Delhi High Court. It was clarified that all the hospitals which have been provided land by the government would have to strictly follow the policy of providing free treatment as directed by the Delhi High Court. Supreme Court upheld such circular observing that when State largesse is being enjoyed by the hospitals in the form of land, it is their obligation to extend reciprocal benefits to the public by providing free treatment as envisaged in the circular. Having obtained land from the government by claiming to be charitable institutions, the hospitals cannot question the laudable objective of the circular.

72.1. We fail to understand as to how the aforesaid decision can come to the aid of the State in the present case. Though learned Advocate General sought to justify the land allotment to respondent No.10 as a policy decision, we are unable to agree to such a contention. This 123 is because there is already a policy vis-a-vis allotment of government land in G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015. However, it is evident that the State has acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner while allotting land to respondent No.10 in complete deviation from the Government Land Allotment Policy, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

73. Having come to the above conclusion, we may now address one of the submissions made by Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.10, 11 and 12. According to Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, construction of the hospital complex is going on in full swing and may be concluded by September, 2023. Therefore, he submitted that keeping in view the laudable objective of establishing the hospital and the advanced stage of construction, the court should not interfere with the land allotment at this stage.

124

74. We are unable to appreciate the above contention for the simple reason that at the threshold, this court had made it very clear vide the order dated 11.02.2021 that the land allotted to respondent No.10 and any construction raised by respondent No.10 over the said land would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Merely because respondent No.10 has gone ahead with the construction cannot be a ground to overlook the inherent illegality. It is trite law that an interim order does not create any additional right upon a litigant. In the circumstances, respondent No.10 cannot seek any equity on the strength of any construction.

75. Upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the State Government strictly in accordance with the Government Land Allotment Policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 01.12.2015.

125

76. Consequently, we set aside G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 22.03.2018 as well as the Memo dated 02.08.2018 and remand the matter back to the State for a fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in mind the discussions made above.

77. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 05.06.2023 Note: LR copy to be marked.

(By order) vs/pln

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court