Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Aamoda Publications Pvt. Ltd., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 November, 2024
1
APHC010042042020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2473/2020
Between:
M/s Aamoda Publications Pvt. Ltd., ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:-
The petitioners have prayed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.21, Revenue (Lands-I) Department, dated 30.01.2020, issued by the 1st respondent by which the land allotted to the petitioner in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy. No.191/10 to 191/14 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, was cancelled, as arbitrary and illegal.
2
2. It is contended that vide the said G.O., the lands assigned in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.251 Revenue (Assign-II) Department dated 28-06-2017, in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents, was cancelled.
3. It is contended that the petitioner is a printer and publisher of Telugu Daily News Paper. The petitioner was originally allotted land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.168 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam, for construction of office building in 1986. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac1.00 cents was acquired by National Highways Authority, without paying any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore made a representation for allotment of alternate land adjacent to the land left out of the acquisition proceedings. It is stated that alienation proposals were initiated proposing alienation of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.191/10 to 191/14, on payment of market value subject to the conditions under BSO-24 and G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue(Assn-I) Department dated 14-09-2012. After payment of the market value prescribed, the 1st respondent has issued proceedings in Rc.No.2261/2014/E2 dated 23-08-2017, alienating and handing over the possession of the land to the petitioner.
4. It is contended that soon after the possession of the land was delivered, the petitioner, by investing substantial sums and after payment of statutory levies, proposed the construction of the building. At that stage, the 1st respondent proposed for resumption of the land allotted in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.16183 of 2019. This Court, vide order dated 3 17-10-2019, directed the authorities not to dispossess the petitioner, without following the procedure under law.
5. Thereafter, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 25-11-2019, to the petitioner expressing its intention to resume the subject land, having regard to its potentiality for public purpose, on the basis of the provisions of BSO 24(6)(3) and as per the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.251 Revenue (Assn-II) Department dated 28-06-2017. The petitioner was asked to submit its explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. To the said notice, the petitioner had submitted explanation that the conditions of alienation have not been violated. Vide impugned proceedings the order of resumption was passed.
6. Heard Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
7. As observed from the notice issued for the resumption of land, the reasons stated by the respondents were for public purposes; however, vide the impugned proceedings, the resumption order was passed for alleged discrepancies in the allotment by referring to the provisions of BSO 24(6)(3). The authorities have alienated the land for market value. If the authorities find that the subject land is required for public purposes, the same can be acquired only after following due procedure under the law. The due procedure under the law means the law that applies to the facts and circumstances of the 4 case. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court directed the respondents to follow the due procedure, which would not only mean the issuance of notice and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The proceedings initiated must be traceable to the relevant law and relevant statutory provisions governing the issue.
8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the decision of the authority should be reasonable and commensurate with the notice issued, and should not be swayed away by irrelevant considerations, rendering the decision making process a nugatory. In the case at hand, the petitioner has submitted its reply to allegations in the show cause notice. The final order passed under the show cause notice has referred to certain discrepancies alleged to have been occurred in the allotment, thus cancelled the allotment. It appears, in respect of the said discrepancies, mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner was never put on notice. The order thus passed amounts to a violation of the earlier directions of this court and also renders the show cause notice a travesty. Therefore, it can safely be construed that the order passed is without notice to the petitioner, and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and suffers from non application of mind for taking into consideration irrelevant factors while passing order of resumption. For all the above stated reasons, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 30-01-2020, are set aside. 5
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:29.11.2024 MVK 6 292 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.2473 of 2020 Date:29.11.2024 MVK