Telangana High Court
C.I.E. Phasei Unit Holders Association vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2023
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.Nos.30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255,
39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
(W.P.No.2811 of 2023) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the Memo No.501/IP&INF/A1/2018 dated 29.08.2022 in fixing the rates for conversion into freehold by categorizing the units into two segments i.e., (a) original allottees; (b) others, and further causing demand notices to the Sub Tenants categorizing them as "others", as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to suspend all further proceedings with regard to the processing of any representation/applications from other than the original allottees and also in taking any further action upon such applications/requisitions from others in respect of the industrial plots with structures in the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, Phase-I of layout 2 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 and further to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to accept applications from the original allottees for conversion of their respective industrial plots with structures into freehold and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.5 is a society formed by the Government. It allotted plots to the members of the petitioner association in the year 1964 to 1974 and for the said purpose entered into an agreement of lease/sale with all the members of the petitioner's association. Ever since the allotment, members of the petitioner association claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the members have since become old and are unable to manage their industrial units on their own and therefore, they have sublet the units to others but have not parted with their rights over the property. It is submitted that the 3 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 respondents No.1 to 4 have issued the impugned memo for conversion of the occupation of the tenants of the members of the petitioner association into freehold, thereby to confer ownership upon them. It is submitted that the respondents No.1 to 4 solicited representations from the tenants of the members of the petitioner association for such conversion into freehold rights in an arbitrary and illegal manner and acting thereupon, have caused demand notices to such sub tenants for payment of the charges. It is submitted that by virtue of the impugned memo, the respondents No.1 to 4 have issued demand notices to third parties for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold, which is arbitrary, unjust and capricious. It is submitted that on the earlier occasions also, the respondents have made similar attempts to make allotment of industrial plots in Balanagar Industrial Estate to the sub tenants of the members of the petitioner association and in such circumstances, some of the members of the petitioner 4 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 association filed W.P.No.36273 of 2018 seeking to declare the memo dated 10.09.2018 vide No.501/IP and INF/A1/2018 which proposed to regularize the land allotted to the members of the petitioner association in favour of the tenants as illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the interim order dated 11.10.2018 was passed directing the respondents to maintain status-quo until further orders and such orders are still in force. It is submitted that another writ petition i.e., W.P.No.37185 of 2018 was filed by some of the members of the petitioner association and similar order of status- quo dated 11.10.2018 has been granted therein. It is submitted that while the status-quo orders are in force, the impugned action of the respondents in processing the requests of the sub tenants of the members of the petitioner association for allotment of land is in gross violation of such orders of this Court. It is submitted that the respondents No.1 to 4 have acted in deviation of the policy to covert the rights of the original allottees into 5 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 freehold right by contemplating to grant such freehold rights to the sub tenants without any notice to the original allottees. It is submitted that the said action is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also the legitimate expectation of the original allottees. It is submitted that in spite of subsistence of such interim orders of status-quo passed in W.P.No.36273 of 2018 and W.P.No.37185 of 2018, the respondents tried to demolish the existing structures in the subject industrial estate and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.30699 of 2021 and an interim order dated 26.11.2021 was passed directing the respondents not to demolish or alter the nature of the buildings belonging to the respondent No.5 society herein in CIE Balangar, and such orders are also still in force.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment of industrial units was made to the respective members of the respondent No.5 society who 6 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 are also the members of the petitioner association on lease/sale basis and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1963, the factory buildings constructed on the estate can be let out on rent or sold on hire purchase only to the members of the society and they shall not be used for any purpose other than of running an approved Small scale industry. It is submitted that the Assistant Director of Industries Department was deputed as an Administrative Officer of the respondent No.5 society to ensure the allotment of industrial plots on lease cum sale basis to the members in respect of Ac.47-00 Gts., of land and the lease cum sale agreement was signed by the Administrative Officer of the respondent No.5 society. It is submitted that the petitioner, represented by its authorized officer, executed deeds of agreement of lease cum sale in favour of the allottees and the terms therein clearly shows that the allotment was made on lease cum sale basis and further stipulated that the members shall construct the 7 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 industrial sheds and commence operations of small scale industries within the stipulated time. The agreements envisage the cancellation of the agreement only in the event of non commencement of operations. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner association have constructed industrial sheds in and around 1964 and had commenced operations of the respective small scale units and the member allottees have paid the lease amounts in terms of lease cum sale agreement and neither the Government nor the respondent No.5 society have caused any notice for cancellation of deed of agreement of lease cum sale, and therefore, the deeds of agreement of lease cum sale are still in force and binding on the parties and are legally enforceable. It is also submitted that the Municipal authorities have assessed the property tax for the respective industrial units of the members of the petitioner association and the respondent No.5 society and the property tax is being paid regularly by the allottees.
8
PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
4. It is submitted that while the matter stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.431 dated 19.12.1991 seeking to enhance the rent illegally without any notice to the allottees/members of the petitioner association and respondent No.5 society. Aggrieved by the same, some of the members have filed W.P.No.7603 of 1993 and interim orders dated 13.11.1995 was granted staying such enhancement. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above writ petition, the respondent No.2 considered the representations made by the members of the petitioner association and the respondent No.5 society and recommended to the Government for complete sale of the industrial plots to the allottees for a total lease rent of Rs. Rs.74,33,520/- and at the rate of Rs.1,58,160/- per acre payable through the petitioner association. It is submitted that the Government is yet to take action upon such recommendation. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner association have made several representations 9 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 to the Government for conveyance of the plots allotted to them and instead of taking a decision thereon, the Government had issued the impugned memo contrary to the statement recorded in W.P.No.7603 of 1993 to regularize occupation of the members of the petitioner association, but not others. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Central Government and the initiative of the State Government, G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.01.1963 was passed and respondent No.5 society was formed with the present members and their predecessors and thereafter, the Government subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.442, dated 17.04.1965, whereunder it enhanced the total outlay of the scheme to Rs.42,83,600/- and out of that, equity participation of the Government was proposed at Rs.7,33,000/- and a sum of Rs.21,98,000/- was proposed to be availed from the LIC as a loan and the balance was to be contributed by way of equity participation by members of the respondent No.5 society. It is submitted that the above 10 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 facts clearly establish that the respondent No.5 society developed the entire industrial outlay of Ac.47-00 Gts., with industrial plots to its members by investing their funds by equity participation along with the State Government and subsequently, also cleared the loan of LIC as well as the equity participation of the State Government from the amounts paid by members. Thus, the members of the petitioner association have paid substantial amounts to the Government and have also invested substantial amounts to establish their respective industrial units and carried on industrial activity for several decades. It is submitted that some of the members of the petitioner association, due to their advanced age and losses suffered due to the various natural calamities and recessionary trends mere not able to carry on the industrial activity and therefore have sublet portions of their industrial sheds to sub tenants to carry on industrial activities. It is submitted that only members of the petitioner association have subsisting 11 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 leasehold rights which can be converted to freehold as per the policy of the Government, but not the sub tenants and therefore the respondents cannot give any credence to the alleged rights of the sub tenants disregarding the vested leasehold rights of the members of the petitioner association. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the impugned memo dated 29.08.2022 in fixing the rates for conversion into freehold by categorizing the units into two segments i.e., (a) original allottees and (b) others, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. This Court, at the time of admission, passed interim orders dated 08.02.2023 directing the respondents to maintain Status-quo as on today in respect of the said land.
5. The Learned Advocate General, appearing for the official respondents No.1 to 4 has relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit filed along with the 12 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 petition to vacate the interim orders dated 08.02.2023. It is stated that the writ petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or in law and is therefore liable to be dismissed in limini. It is submitted that the petitioner association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. He explained that pursuant to the objectives laid down by the Central Government and on the recommendations of the Standing Committee of All India Small Scale Industries Board, the Government of India, in June, 1960 had requested the State Governments to organize industrial estates in the private sector as well as in the Cooperative Sectors with loan assistance from scheduled banks or LIC of India and accordingly, a group of enthusiastic entrepreneurs and industrialists formulated to establish a Cooperative Industrial Estate in the name and style of "The Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited", Balanagar, which was registered under the A.P.(Telangana area) Cooperative Societies Act, 1952. It is stated that the State Government had allotted 13 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 Ac.47-00 Gts., of Government land to the Cooperative Industrial Estate, Balanagar in two phases i.e., in the first phase, land to an extent of Ac.30-00 Gts., was allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.01.1963 and the possession thereof was taken on 10.08.1964 and subsequently in second phase, land to an extent of Ac.17-00 Gts., was allotted vide Letter No.Technical/SE/ScE.64-5488, dated 05.11.1964 and the physical possession was given on 12.11.1964. Thus, a total of Ac.47-00 Gts., of land was given on lease for 51 years on nominal rent and though possession was given to the allottees, the ownership of Ac.47-00 Gts., of land vested with the Government even during the 51 years of lease period. The financial pattern of the development of estate is stated to be as follows:
(i) 20% of share capital by the members = Rs.7.33 lakhs;
(ii) 20% of equity participation by the Government = Rs.7.33 lakhs;14
PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
(iii) 60% loan from LIC on State Government Guarantee = Rs.21.99 lakhs.
6. It is submitted that the estate has paid the entire loan amount to LIC and in turn the society has allotted plots in type A - 1.00 Acre of land, type B - 3/4th Acre of land and type C - 1/2 Acre to the members of the society by executing lease agreements by the society. It is submitted that the lease was granted by the Government subject to certain guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1963 and one of the condition was that the land shall be used for construction of factory buildings and for establishment of Small Scale Industries and other approved ancillary buildings and that the land shall not be sold, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of by the society and the ownership of the land shall continue to be vested with the Government only during the period of 51 years of lease period. It is submitted that the lease period of the CIE, Balangar has expired on 31.12.2015 and therefore, the respondent 15 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 No.3 has taken over the symbolic possession of the land through panchanama dated 13.12.2016 in the presence of the Revenue Officials and thereafter, no lease was extended by the Government over the said land. It is submitted that the vide proceedings No.21315/17(2)/2016 dated 23.02.2016, the respondent No.2 herein constituted three inspection teams and directed them to inspect CIE, Balanagar and accordingly, inspection was conducted and the report was submitted to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 30.05.2016. It is submitted that several violations of the lease terms were noted and another joint inspection was conducted vide Memo dated 29.01.2020 and similar report was submitted by the authorities. In view of the same, the Government, keeping in view the irregularities which occurred in CIE, Balanagar, during the lease period of 51 years and the representations made by the existing unit holders for freehold rights, issued the impugned memo dated 29.08.2022 for issuance of freehold rights to the 16 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 existing unit holders by classifying the existing unit holders into two categories i.e., the first category comprising of the existing unit holders who are the original allottees including their legal heirs with working units and the second category comprising of all other existing unit holders. It is submitted that the Government has fixed nominal rates for freehold rights at the rate of 100% of registration value in case of category-A unit holders and at the rate of 200% of registration value in case of category-B unit holders. It is submitted that vide memo dated 02.02.2023, in partial modification of the impugned memo, category-A has been re-classified as original allottee and their legal heirs, fulfilling any of the following criteria i.e.,
(i) The unit is working;
(ii) The unit is not working;
(iii) Plot is vacant;
(iv) Units are closed due to non-renewal of CFO by Pollution Control Board.
17
PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
7. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner association have ceased to be lessees on expiry of the lease period on 31.12.2015 and therefore, they have no locus or interest in the said property to challenge the impugned memo before this Court. It is submitted that the Government, being the absolute owner of the entire extent of the land, keeping in view the industrial promotion policy, has taken a decision to extend freehold rights at nominal rates to be made applicable to the members of petitioner association as well as the respondent No.6 society. It is submitted that the averment of the petitioner association that by virtue of the impugned memo, the rights of the original allottees have been changed into freehold rights to sub tenants is baseless and false. It is submitted that even during the subsistence of lease period, most of the members have not paid the lease rent to the Government and in view of the same, the Government has suffered severe financial losses. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ 18 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 petition. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention that after expiry of the original period of lease, it stands terminated by efflux of time and therefore, the lessor is entitled to take the possession of the property and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act read with relevant rules in favour of eligible applicants by conducting public auctions, if it intends to dispose of the property.
(1) DDA Vs. Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd., 1; (2) Kundla Press & Oil Mill (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Gujarat 2.
He relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions that where a tenant is holding over after determination of tenancy by efflux of time, no notice 1 (2016) 11 SCC 406 2 (2017) 13 SCC 701 19 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 is required for institution of a suit for eviction of such tenant:
(a) Sevoke Properties Ltd., Vs. W.B.State Electricity Distribution Company Limited 3;
(b) Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Amit Kumar 4;
(c) State of U.P. Vs. Harish Tandon 5;
8. Learned Advocate General representing the Government has thus argued that the Government has retained the right over the land and immediately on the lapse of lease period of 51 years, the symbolic possession of the property was taken over by the respondent No.3 in the presence of the Revenue Officials. Therefore, according to him, the petitioners have no right whatsoever over the property and they are continuing in 3 (2020) 11 SCC 785 4 (2019) 11 SCC 733 5 (2016) 15 SCC 242 20 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 possession illegally. It is submitted that the original allottees have since given the properties on unauthorized lease/sale to the tenants and as on today, it s only the tenants who are in possession of the properties and therefore, they are to be considered as the allottees and freehold rights can be granted in favour of such persons. Learned Advocate General, therefore strongly supported the memo dated 29.08.2022.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Amod Nandkishore Mehra and Others Vs. Ashok Nandkishore Mehra of Mumbai and Another 6 in support of his contention that symbolic possession does not amount to physical possession and therefore, the members of the petitioner association continue to be in possession of their respective units. 6 2012 SCC Online Bom.686 21 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 also filed a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition stating that the respondent No.5 allotted land in Phase-I, Balanagar to about 80 persons/companies/ partnerships, but only 26 of them have set up industries which are still running as on today and the rest of the allottees, through various unregistered documents, had given possession of the land to third parties for setting up industrial units. It is submitted that myriad transactions spread over several decades have taken place, through which eventually more than 174 industrial units came into existence and all the 174 industrial units are registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and they are all members of the respondent No.6 association, which is a registered society. It is submitted that being unable to run the industrial units, the original allottees have sold away their leasehold rights to the members of the respondent No.6 and therefore, the right of freehold 22 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 rights should be allowed to leaseholder as well. It is submitted that the original allottees have no subsisting rights after their transfer of rights in favour of the third parties and therefore, the parties who have so gained entry into the premises should be allowed to participate in the process initiated by the impugned memo dated 29.08.2022 and their application should also be considered. Further he placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his above contentions.
(1) Bannari Amman Sugars Limited 7;
(2) State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Vs. D.Raghukul Pershad & Others 8;
(3) Brigadier K.K.Verma & Another Vs. Union of India & Another 9;
(4) M.R.S.Ramakrishnan Vs. The Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (District Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen Boad) Tiruchirapalli & Othes 10; 7 (2005) 1 SCC 625 8 (2012) 8 SCC 584 9 AIR 1954 Bombay 358 10 AIR 1982 Madras 431 23 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 (5) Mogllipuvvu Annapurnaiah Vs. Malampati Narasimha Rao & Another 11.
11. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.6 has further argued in favour of the impugned memo and submitted that the members of the respondent No.6 society are in actual possession of the property and therefore they are entitled to get freehold rights as proposed by the Government on payment of 200% of the registration value.
12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record it is noticed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had allotted 47 acres of land pursuant to the directions of Government of India for setting up the Cooperative Industrial Estate at Balanagar. Though the Government states that it has only allotted the leasehold rights in favour of the members of respondent No.5 society, who are also the members of the petitioner association, the documents signed by the concerned 11 1982 (1) APLJ (HC) 130 24 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 officer are lease cum sale deeds. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the allottees have subsequently repaid the loan from LIC and also the Government's contribution and therefore, there is no contribution of the Government any longer in the estate and all that remains is the formality of granting of freehold rights in favour of the allottees by the Government by collecting a nominal fee. It is seen that by virtue of the lease cum sale deeds, the original allottees have acquired rights of not only lease but of title over the property and further that the sub tenants, if at all, have acquired only leasehold rights of allottees, and hence cannot claim any independent rights over the plots. It is therefore appears that the respondents are acting unjustly in allowing others also to participate in the process of granting freehold rights in respect of the Cooperative Industrial Estate, Balanagar.
25
PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
13. Further, the documents of lease are named and styled as lease cum sale. The terms of the agreement also shows that allottees are required to make the payment for the buildings proposed to be constructed for starting the industrial units. In view of the same, though the Government legally continued to be the owner of the land on which the buildings have been constructed, the allottees have also become the owners of the buildings on payment of instalments as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.42. Therefore, by sub-letting the properties, albeit against the guidelines/terms of the allotment, they would not lose their rights over the properties and the sub tenants can only claim through the allottees and they would not get any independent right whatsoever over the units.
14. The contention of the Government i.e., respondents No.1 to 4 has been that due to the expiry of the lease period, the members of the petitioner association have no further right in the property. In support of this 26 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 contention, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of DDA Vs. Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd., (cited supra) and Kundla Press & Oil Mill (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Gujarat (cited supra). On going through the same, this Court finds that in the case of Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that unless and until lease has be extended, the lease gets terminated by efflux of time. Similar decision was given in the case of Kundla Press & Oil Mill (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Gujarat (cited supra) that there can be no lease in perpetuity in favour of any persons. However, as observed above, the documents are not just lease deeds, but are lease cum sale and therefore, these two decisions would not apply ipso facto to the facts of this case before this Court. As regards the other decisions on tenancy of sufferance that the petitioners, who are the tenants are holding over after termination of tenancy by efflux of time and no notice is required to be given to such tenants for the reason given 27 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 above, these decisions are also not applicable to the case on hand.
15. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 are all in respect of their right to seek conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights, but this Court has already held that they can only claim their right through the original allottees. It is for the Government to consider their cases if the original allottees are not available.
16. Further the Government has only categorized the persons eligible for availing the scheme into two categories i.e., (i) original allottees and (2)others. Who are the persons who can be considered as others, is not specified by the Government i.e., whether they are only the sub tenants or even third parties who are interested to purchase the property. Therefore, there is ambiguity in the memo issued by the Government.
28
PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023
17. In view of the same, the impugned G.O., is not sustainable. The Government is therefore directed to re- consider and issue a fresh G.O., specifying the persons who fall under the category of "others" mentioned in the G.O. It is also made clear that it is the original allottees, who have right over the property and where the original allottees are no longer in existence and it is only the sub tenants who are in possession of the property and there is no counter claim by the original allottees, only in such cases, can the Government consider granting freehold rights to such sub tenants/others.
18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 05.06.2023 Bak 29 PMD,J W.P.Nos: 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.Nos. 30699 of 2021, 39739, 39247, 39255, 39290, 39383, 41842 of 2022 and 2811 of 2023 Dated: 05.06.2023 bak