Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C. Hanumantha Rao, vs The Govt. Of A.P. Rep By Its Secretary To ... on 4 January, 2024
Author: B. Krishna Mohan
Bench: B. Krishna Mohan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
WRIT PETITION Nos.26009 of 2005, 2690 of 2007,
11421 of 2008, 21235 of 2009 and 27111 of 2009
(THROUGH PHYSICAL MODE)
W.P.No.26009 of 2005:
M/s.Mc.Dowell & Co. Ltd., having its
registered office at Mc.Dowell House,
rep. by Power of Authority Holder,
Hyderabad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others
... Respondents
W.P.No.2690 of 2007:
M/s.Mc.Dowell & Co. Ltd., having its
registered office at Mc.Dowell House,
rep. by Power of Authority Holder,
Hyderabad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others
... Respondents
W.P.No.11421 of 2008:
M/s.Mc.Dowell & Co. Ltd., having its
registered office at Mc.Dowell House,
rep. by Power of Authority Holder,
Hyderabad. ... Petitioner
2
Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others
... Respondents
W.P.No.21235 of 2009:
M/s.Mc.Dowell & Co. Ltd., having its
registered office at Mc.Dowell House,
rep. by Power of Authority Holder,
Hyderabad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others
... Respondents
W.P.No.27111 of 2009:
C.Hanumantha Rao, S/o.China Veerabhadraiah,
Occ: Advocate, Hyderabad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Secretary to Revenue
Department (ULC), Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others
... Respondents
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions arise under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976. All the above writ petitions relate to surplus land measuring Hectors 4.3101 Sq.meters in TS.1011/1A1, A2 situated at Waltair uplands within Urban Agglomeration of Vishakhapatnam. All the Writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.
3
2. W.P.No.2690 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner company seeking a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records in the appeal VSP/87/2004 on the file of the 2nd respondent vide its order dated 04.10.2005 and impugned order dated 05.08.2004 in CC.No.6698 of 1976 of the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 and consequently to set aside the Section 8(4) order, final statement u/s. 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) and all the consequential proceedings in C.C.No.6698 of 1976 including allotment of land in favour of APIIC by further directing the respondents to grant exemption either under Section 21 or under G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 21.03.2005 or under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 over the petitioner company land to an extent of hectors 4,3101 sq.mtr. in T.S.NO.1011/1A1, A2 situated at Waltair uplands, Visakhapatnam.
3. W.P.No.11421 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner company to declare the notice under Section 10(5) dated 09.02.1997 of Special Officer, ULC as illegal, not a valid notice against them and the proceedings under Section 10(6) dated 16.01.1998 are null and void as there is no valid panchanama, and that the petitioner company is legally and lawfully entitled to retain the land as absolute owner in consequence of the repeal Act, which came into force on 27.03.2008 as there was no declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act.
4. W.P.No.21235 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner company seeking to initiate action on their representation dated 01.07.2009 extending the benefits of 4 G.O.Ms.No.567, dated 05.07.1997 and provisions of the Repeal Act, dated 27.03.2008.
5. W.P.No.27111 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner company challenging the action of 3rd respondent in refusing permission to peruse the entire file in C.C.No.6698/1976 and refusal to furnish copies of entire file under RTI Act stating that it would prejudice the contentions of the state in W.P.No.2690 of 2007 and W.P.No.11421 of 2009 as illegal.
6. The aforementioned prayers in the above said writ petitions are founded on the following assertions:
That M/s.Hindustan Polymers Ltd. was taken over by petitioner company pursuant to the order passed by Bombay High Court in Company Petition No.236/1981 and the Madras High Court in Company Petition No.43/1981. Both Madras High Court and Bombay High Court had ordered amalgamation of transferor company with all its assets and liabilities with the transferee company (Mc.Dowell Co.) to be made pursuant to the said scheme of amalgamation to take effect from 1st April, 1978 vide orders dated 22.02.1982 and 31.03.1982 respectively.
The declarant company M/s.Hindsutan Polymers Ltd., Visakhapatnam filed statement before the concerned authority on 13.08.1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 to declare the exemption of land to an extent of Hectors 101.3985 square metres held by it in Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration Under section 20(1) of ULC Act, 1976. The competent authority issued orders 5 dated 05.11.1981 under Section 9 of the Act, showing Hectares 76.9585 as surplus land by allowing an extent of Hectares 24.4400. The notification for acquisition under Section 10(1) was issued and published in A.P.Gazette on 24.11.1981 for the surplus extent of Hectares 76.9585 square metres. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1033 dated 08.10.1992 exempted the lands to an extent of 67.2165 hectares which included the extent of 4.3101 Hectares at Waltair Uplands along with other extents in Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration to construct residential accommodation for the officers of Hindustan Polymers division as well as UB Clastomers General and UB Petro Chemicals Ltd., on a condition that the construction work shall commence within six months. Since the company violated the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1033 dated 08.10.1992 a show cause notice was issued to the declarant company on 12.01.1994 to show cause as to why exemption granted to an extent of Hectares 4.3101 square metres of Waltair Ward should not be withdrawn under Section 20(2) of ULC Act, 1976 for violation of condition stipulated. The declarant company filed a representation seeking extension of period of exemption for two more years. The government issued orders exempting upto December, 1996 by memo dated 25.11.1994. The government rejected the request of the petitioner company for development of Holiday resort in the land measuring 4.3101 hectares of waltair ward vide G.O.Ms.No.526 on 21.06.1997. The Government also issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26.07.1997 withdrawing the exemption granted earlier. 6
Notification under Section 10(1) was issued on 09.10.1997, objections were called for, notifications under Sections 10(3), 10(5) were issued and the petitioner company failed to surrender surplus land and sought for exemption of land. The Government turned down the request of the company. Notice under Section 10(5) dated 09.12.1997 was also issued to handover possession of land measuring hectares 4.3101 square metres of waltair uplands within 30 days. The said notice was sent to L.G.Polymers Ltd., Visakhapatnam. The company returned the said cover on 20.12.1997 to handover it to Revenue Department. Hence, notice under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 16.01.1998 authorising Mandal Revenue Inspector (Urban) to take over possession of land by conducting panchanama. Accordingly Mandal Revenue Inspector has taken possession by conducting panchanama on 16.01.1998. Thus the lands which are covered in this writ petition became vested with the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from 23.11.1997 in accordance with law. Thereafter the 2nd respondent by reason of notice dated 06.07.1998 initiated proceedings for payment of compensation to the petitioner company under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner filed three writ petitions viz., W.P.No.23773 of 1998, 33741 of 1998, and 9481 of 1999 challenging withdrawal of exemption and declaration for that notification published in A.P.Gazette dated 09.10.1997 under Section 10(1) and A.P.Gazette notification dated 13.11.1997 under Section 10(3) of the Act as illegal. By common order dated 08.09.2000 in the said writ petitions, the Hon'ble High Court allowed W.P.No.33741 of 1998 and held that the orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.630 as illegal and set aside the said GO and remitted the matter back 7 to Government for fresh consideration by duly giving an opportunity of personal hearing sought by the petitioner. The other two writ petitions viz., W.P.No.23773 of 1999 and W.P.No.9481 of 1999 were closed.
Aggrieved by the same, W.A.No.1282 of 200 against W.P.No.9481 of 1999, W.A.No.1283 of 2000 against W.P.No.33741 of 1998 were filed. The petitioner also filed W.A.No.1284 of 2000 against W.P.No.23773 of 1998 and W.A.No.1576 of 2001 against W.P.No.9481 of 1999 and W.A.No.1639 of 2001 against W.P.No.33741 of 1998 were filed by the petitioner and the same were admitted by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and interim direction was given to the Government to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the orders passed in W.P.No.23773 of 1998 and batch. All the writ appeals were clubbed and heard by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated 16.11.2001 set aside the judgment dated 08.09.2000 of the learned single judge and allowed the writ appeals preferred by the State and dismissed the writ appeals preferred by the petitioner. The Petitioner preferred SLP against the order dated 16.11.2001 and the same was also dismissed on 03.04.2002. Thus the withdrawal orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26.07.1997 and consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent under Sections 10(1)to 10(6) became final, government issued orders under G.O.Ms.No.431 dated 23.03.2003 and also vide G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 27.12.2003 allotting the land in favour of Government department. The petitioner company filed declaration on 03.02.2004 under Section 20(1) of ULC Act and also to allow the application seeking utilisation of land for 8 construction of dwelling houses before the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, petitioner made an application under Section 21 of the Act before the 2nd respondent seeking permission for construction of dwelling units, and then filed a W.P.No.11591 of 2004 for not entertaining application under Section 20(1) and not granting exemption as illegal. During the pendency of writ petition, the 3rd respondent passed orders on 05.08.2004 dismissing the application. Consequently, writ petition was dismissed and the writ appeal 1714 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 03.11.2004. However liberty was given to the appellant to file appeal u/s. 33 of 1976 Act and the appeal VSP/87/2004 preferred against the order dated 05.08.2004 was also dismissed.
Government pursuant to the disposal of the writ appeals in its favour, taken steps to utilise the surplus extent of hectors 4,3101 of Waltair ward vested with the Government in G.O.Ms.No.431 dated 23.03.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.1356, dated 27.12.2003 allotted the land to various Government Departments. The declarant company filed the applications before the 3rd respondent seeking exemption under Section 20(1) of the Act, to retain the surplus extent for the purpose of construction of dwelling houses to the weaker section employees of the company. Government cancelled the allotment orders issued previously and allotted the land to APIIC Ltd., for development of IT Park vide G.O.MS.No.829, dated 19.10.2004 and the possession of the vacant land was handed over to APIIC on 20.10.2004. Since then APIIC is in possession of the vacant land. 9
7. The petitioner company filed appeal u/s.33 of the ULC Act., and the 2nd respondent disposed of the appeal vide its order 04.10.2005 holding that he did not find any infirmity in the orders dated 05.08.2004 of the 3rd respondent against which in W.P.No.2690/2007 petitioner challenged the orders in Appeal before the 3rd respondent and sought for direction to the respondents to not allot or assign land to any third party, the same was rejected. In the writ petition the interim prayer to restrain the respondents from allotting the surplus land was rejected by the Learned Single Judge and the same was carried in appeal. A division bench of this Hon'ble Court dismissed the writ appeal and made clear that alienation made hereinafter shall remain subject of the final adjudication of the writ petition vide its Judgment dt.21.08.2007. Consequent on repeal of ULC Act, Ms.McDowell Company /Petitioner Company filed W.P.No.11421 of 2008. Hon'ble Court passed interim orders on 29.05.2008 that "status quo obtained as regards possession of land in question shall be maintained pending further orders in the writ petition."
8. The contention of the petitioner is that High Courts of Bombay and Madras have ordered amalgamation of M/s Hindustan Polymers Ltd., with Mcdowell Company with effect from 01.04.1978 in two Company Petition Nos.43 of 1981 and 236 of 1981. Since the State Government through 3 rd respondent initiated entire procedure u/s10(1), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of ULC Act., of 1976 and manipulated panchanama on 16.01.1998 on M/s Hindustan Polymers a non existing company which has no legal sanctity and therefore nullity in the Eye of Law. Petitioner also submits that industrial license dt.8.01.1986 granted to 10 M/s.Hindustan Polymers Ltd., was also transferred in the name of Mcdowell Company Ltd., vide approval of Ministry of Industrial Development dated 25.05.1989.
9. It is also the contention of the petitioner that even after withdrawal of exemption by GO.Ms.630, dt.26.07.1997 even before the period extended by the Government, the land is not vested with the Government, and issuance of withdrawal of exemption and its effects would make it clear that the action of Special Officer and competent authority in resorting to proceeding under sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6) and panchanama dated 16.01.1998 by Special Officer ULC, Visakhapatnam in the name of M/s Hindustan Polymers are not valid under law. It is also further contended that company requested before the Govt., through several representations, which are ignored without proper disposal of the company application u/s.4 of the Repeal Act., following opinion of the Law Department, which opinion deserves to be considered by the High Court.
10. It is also contended that the Govt., and its authority are aware from 1997 that the property to an extent of 4.3101 Hectors does not belongs to LG Polymers but belongs to Mcdowell Company and issuance of Section 10(6) proceedings are impermissible either on Law or on facts. Petitioner also contends that on perusal of the note file furnished under RTI Act., the opinion of Law Department that without notice to Mcdowell Company the proceedings were initiated against non existing company M/s Hindustan Polymers and therefore would become void ab initio and give rise to no legal consequence and shall not 11 even effect the rights, title, interest and possession of Mcdowell company over its property of Hectors 4.3101.
11. On the other hand respondents 1,2,3,4 and 7 filed their reply by way of counter and it is submitted by the respondents that petitioner Mcdowell Company started agitating against the termination of exemption and taking over of surplus land from M/s Hindustan Polymers Ltd., by filing several writ petitions, writ appeals in the Hon'ble High Court, A.P. and also filed the special leave petitions in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, right from the year 1997 itself.
12. The Hon'ble High Court vide its common order dated.08.09.2000 disposed of the Writ Petition Nos.23773 of 1998, 33741 of 1998 and 9481 of 1999 in which W.P.No.33741 of 1998 was allowed by setting aside the Go.Ms.630, dated 26.07.1997. The Government filed W.A.No.128 of 2000 against W.P.No.9481 of 1999, W.A.No.1283 of 2000 against W.P.No.33741 of 1998, W.A.No.1284 of 2000 against W.P.No.23773 of 1998 and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide its common order dated 16.11.2001 have allowed the writ appeals of the Government and set aside the orders passed by the Single Learned Judge dated 08.09.2000.
13. The Repeal Act came into force on 27.03.2008. After Repeal Act came into force all the proceedings under the Act have got abated. The possession was already taken over and handed over to APIIC in the year 2004 itself. Hence their main writ petition got abated in view of the Repeal Act., 1999. Thereafter the government on the other hand pursuant to the disposal of writ appeal in favour 12 of the Government has taken steps to utilize the surplus extent and has allotted the land to APIIC for development of IT Park vide G.O.Ms.No.829, dated 09.10.2004. The possession of vacant land was handed over to APIIC on 20.10.2004
14. It is also contended by the Respondents that declarant company after having lost its case on withdrawal of exemption in terms of Go.Ms.630, dated. 26.07.1997 in all legal forums has chosen to file an application seeking exemption u/s.21(1) of the Act., to retain surplus extent in T.S.1011 of Waltair ward for the purpose of construction of dwelling houses to weaker section employees of the company. While the matter was under active consederation W.P.11591 OF 2004 was filed seeking early disposal of exemption application. In the meanwhile the exemption application was rejected by the special officer vide its order dated 05.08.2004 stating that the claim was barred by limitation U/s.11(b) of ULC Act., and outside the purview of ULC Act., later W.P.1159 of 2004 was also disposed of on 28.09.2004 with a direction to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal available u/s.33 of ULC Act., against rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent.
15. Pursuant to rejection orders, Government allotted the land to APIIC, Hyderabad for development of IT Park and possession of vacant land was handed over to APIIC on 20.10.2004. Meanwhile petitioner Company filed W.A. on 17.02.2004 against the dismissal of W.P.No.1159 of 2004 and the same was 13 dismissed on 03.11.2004 holding that the petitioner company has got statutory remedy of filing appeal.
16. Accordingly, the petitioner company filed appeal u/s 33 of the Act and when the matter was pending, petitioner company filed another W.P.No.24474 of 2004 against inaction of the authority to dispose of the Appeal. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.12.2004 since the petitioner had already filed appeal he was at liberty to pursue his remedy with the appellate authority. W.A.No.279 of 2005 was preferred by petitioner and it was allowed with a direction to the appellant authority to take up the appeal. The 2 nd respondent was directed to take up the appeal as well as application for stay and pass appropriate orders. By order dated 24.02.2005 this court considered the matter rejected stay application and appeal was posted to 29.03.2005 for hearing.
17. The petitioner company in another round of litigation filed W.P.No.6271 of 2005 questioned the allotment of land to APIIC when appeal was pending before the 2nd respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to urge the grounds in the appeal. Against the same W.A.No.915 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner company and the same was dismissed with costs. Review was also filed and the same was also dismissed.
18. Meanwhile petitioner company filed another W.P.No.10951 of 2005 against rejection of interim stay sought for by the petitioner company from the 2nd respondent and the Hon'ble Court vide its interim order dated 17.05.2005 held that any allotment of the surplus land is subject to the result of the appeal 14 filed u/s 33 of the Act. The 2nd respondent disposed of the appeal VSP/87/2004, dt.04.10.2005 holding that it did not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 05.08.2004 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner company u/s 21 of the Act. The 2nd respondent held that while the appeal was pending the petitioner company filed petition to implead Secretary and other respondents in appeal to amend the prayer in the appeal in view of the G.O.Ms.No.11, dt.21.03.2005 which was issued after filing of appeal. The 2nd respondent conclusively held that the scope of appeal cannot be sought to be enlarged by the petitioners company to raise unconnected issues out of G.O.Ms.No.11 and thereby rejected the application. It is also contended that the petitioner's company filed petitions addressed to the Hon'ble Chef Minister with regard to G.O.Ms.No.11, dt. 21.03.2005, since no orders were passed another W.P.No.26005 of 2005 was filed to direct the respondents to pass orders on the applications dt.20.05.2005, 27.05.2005, 30.05.2005 and 31.08.2005 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to enter into any sort of agreements over the petitioners company land till disposal of the applications.
19. The respondents further deny that the surplus lands held by M/s.Hindustan Polymers are vested with the petitioner company consequent upon exemption granted vide Go.Ms.1033, dt.08.10.1992 as averred by the petitioners company. The respondents further submit that the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Government to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of 15 personal hearing to the petitioner company. The appeals were accordingly disposed off.
20. The respondents submit that petitioners company has lost its case in almost all forums of judiciary of the country and again reverted back by seeking statutory entitlement u/s.21 of the Act. The holder of surplus land could only claim the land held by him in excess whereas in the instant case the petitioner company was no longer holding surplus land and therefore petitioner cannot claim any sort of relief u/s 21 of the Act., Respondents also contended that as per Rule 11(b) of ULC Act., the declaration u/s 21 of the Act., shall be filed within 1139 days from the date on which vacant land ceased to be exempted, hence the averments of the petitioner are not tenable and deserve no consideration. It is further the contention of the respondents that the land in question is a surplus land vested with the Government is in accordance with the power under Section 23 of the Act., and it was already allotted to APIIC for development of IT park.
21. It is also the contention of the respondents that the land in question was vested with Govt., by virtue of publication of declaration u/s 10(3) of the Act., on 13.11.1998. The declarant company/M/s Hindustan Polymers on 29.10.1996 sought permission of the Government for transfer of land held by the company in Venkatapuram, Vepagunta and Gopalapatnam villages but not the land of Waltair ward i.e., the land in question in the writ petitions. As such it is clear that declarant company M/s Hindustan Polymers had not transferred the land in question in favour of the petitioner's company. Therefore, the Government under 16 the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 disposed off in accordance with the provision of Section 23 of the Act. The 3rd respondent has also filed a detailed counter wherein it is contended that exemption to an extent of Hectors 67.2165 was granted vide Go.Ms. 1033, dt.08.10.1992 by imposing certain conditions. Since, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions, notices were issued on 12.01.1994 as to why exemption should not be revoked in respect of 4.3101 hectors.
22. The petitioner sought time upon which two years further period was extended. Petitioner filed application for developing beach resorts and the said representation was rejected and Go.Ms.No.630, dt. 26.07.1997 was issued cancelling exemption granted earlier in respect of 4.3101 Hectors of land. Subsequently, L.G. Chemical Ltd., filed an application seeking certain amendments in GO.Ms.526, dt.21.06.1997 in the name of declarant company which was Hindustan Polymers to be read as Hindustan Polymers a division of Mcdowell and Company Ltd.,". In Go.Ms.567, 05.07.1997 amendment as Polymers India Pvt., Ltd., was also carried out. That petitioner filed several writ petitions and counter affidavits. In earlier writ petitions it was clearly stated that notices were issued on declarant Company but for the first time in this writ petition the petitioner contends that notice was not served on the petitioners company but was issued in the name of non existing company. It is further contended that counters filed in the earlier round of litigation it was clearly stated that notices were issued and served on declarant Company/Hindustan Polymers Ltd., and petitioner herein who filed earlier writ petitions was aware 17 that notices were issued on Hindustan Polymers. The petitioners did not choose to raise any objections in the earlier round of litigation. On perusal of the correspondence between Hindustan Polymers and ULC authorities, which are filed as material papers it can be seen that Hindustan Polymers Ltd., was existing and only a rider was added stating that unit of Mc Dowell Company" hence notices served by the respondents are valid.
23. In reply to the counter of the respondents, the petitioner's company submitted that, the orders of the court that Govt., has taken possession of surplus land is untenable and the respondents cannot dispute the statutory entitlement to file application u/s 21 of ULC Act., and further contends that allowing the writ appeals upholding Go.Ms630, dt. 26.07.97 does not empower the Govt., to treat the vacant land of 4.3101 Hectors as vested with it and that Go.Ms567, dt.05.07.1997 was issued in favour of Mc Dowell Company Ltd., establishes that the said land was the property of petitioner company.
24. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and Bombay in the year 1982 the whole of undertaking of Hindustan Polymers Ltd., stands transferred to Mc Dowell Company from 01.04.1978 transferring all properties and liabilities.
25. This Court has given serious thought to the rival arguments of the Learned counsels. The learned counsels submit their arguments in common to all the four writ petitions which require a common order.
18
26. Admittedly M/s.Hindustan Polymers which is a constituent of the appellant succeeded in getting exemption but did not comply with the conditions of exemption resulting in withdrawal of exemption and taking over of possession in January, 1998.
27. The contention of the petitioner is that the withdrawal of exemption vide G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26.07.1997 would not affect the petitioner Mc.Dowell company's rights, interest and possession since the withdrawal of exemption was made against M/s.Hindustan Polymers ltd., a non existing company which has no legal right or vested interest. Further contention of the petitioner company is that by virtue of amalgamation of M/s.Hindustan Polymers with McDowell and issuance of amendment to G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997 by G.O.Ms.No.567 dated 05.07.1997 it is Mc.Dowell petitioner company to receive any notice or correspondence in respect of 4,3101 Hectares of land as exempted vide G.O.Ms.NO.1033 dated 08.10.1992 but not Hindustan Polymers.
28. On perusal of correspondence between Hindustan Polymers and ULC authorities, it can be clearly seen that an application was submitted by L.G.Chemicals seeking amendment of G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997. The Hindustan Polymers Ltd was existing and only a rider be added stating that it is a "Unit of McDowell Company". Amendment to G.O.Ms.No.526 which was brought out in G.O.Ms.NO.567 dated 05.07.1997 clearly mentioning that wherever Hindustan Polymers occurs it be read as "Hindustan Polymers' a division of Mc.Dowell Company Ltd."
19
29. It is to be noted that the amendment with regard to the change of name of declarant Company, which was Hindustan Polymers Ltd., was carried out as Hindustan Polymers, a Division of Mc.Dowell Co. ltd. Therefore, all the correspondence from Hindustan Polymers Ltd., reflects petitioner company as Hindustan Polymers Ltd., (which is the division/unit of Mc.Dowell Company Ltd) which implies that Mc.Dowell Company is also having knowledge of all the notices, notifications and orders communicated. Hence the contention of the petitioner company that no notices are served on it is not proper and correct and the same cannot be accepted. It is very much evident from the correspondence that whenever Hindustan Polymers is there the word "Unit of Mc.Dowell Company Ltd." is also reflected in "brackets". The petitioner company entered the shoes of Hindustan Polymers. Petitioner is therefore precluded from pleading that the land itself was not vested with the government and that the procedure under ULC was not followed. The respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the provisions of ULC Act by issuing notices to Hindustan Polymers and Hindustan Polymers is a unit of Mc. Dowell Company.
30. Further contention of the petitioner company that at least after 05.07.1997 all statutory notices in respect of 4.3101 hectares should have been in the name of the petitioner company and any notices or orders against M/s.Hindustan Polymers Ltd., including notification under Section 10(1) dated 09.10.1997, Section 10(3) dated 24.10.1997, Section 10(5) dated 09.12.1997 and section 10(6) dated 16.01.1998 and alleged panchanama on the same date against M/s.Hindsutan Polymers are all illegal. The said contention cannot be accepted as 20 the legality and correctness of the proceedings under Sections 8, 9 and 10 issued in favour of its division were already challenged by way of writ petitions, writ appeals, SLPs, Review petitions and thus became res judicata. Further contention of the petitioners that opinion of the Government at paragraph 67 of the note file that orders passed without notice to Mc.Dowell Company is void, is of no legal consequence as it is only a mere opinion of the Government to place for reference before appropriate authority for final adjudication of the matter.
31. Further the petitioner also filed several writ petitions and counter affidavits in earlier writ petitions wherein it was clearly stated that notices were issued on the petitioner company, but for the first time in this writ petition the petitioner pleads that no notices were served on the petitioner's company but was issued in the name of non existing company but in the counters filed in the earlier round of litigation it was clearly stated that notices were served on the declarant company. Hindustan Polymers Ltd and the petitioner company herein who filed earlier writ petitions were aware that notices were issued on Hindustan Polymers. The petitioner did not choose to raise any objections in the earlier round of litigations.
32. Consequently, it is evident from the several writ petitions and counter affidavits in the earlier writ petitions right from 1997 that Mc.Dowell Company is litigating as petitioner in various writ petitions. Therefore, the petitioner herein who filed earlier writ petitions was aware that notices were issued on Hindustan Polymers. The petitioner chose to contest the earlier round of litigation in their 21 name as "Mc Dowell Company". Therefore, petitioner is precluded from pleading that the land itself was not vested with the Government and that the proceedings under ULC were not followed. The respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the provisions of ULC Act by issuing notices to Hindustan Polymers and Hindustan Polymers is a unit of Mc.Dowell Co. ltd.
33. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the name of the Hindustan Polymers did not undergo change but it became Hindustan Polymer (unit of Mc.Dowell Co. Ltd.,) and hence, notices served by the respondent authorities to Hindustan Polymers is in accordance with the provisions of ULC Act as Hindustan Polymers is a unit of Mc.Dowell Co. Ltd., it is seen that section 10(3) declaration was published in A.P. Gazette on 13.11.1997 declaring that the land to an extent of 4.3101 Hectares be deemed to have been vested absolutely with the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent. Consequently section 10(5) notice was issued to the petitioner to deliver possession of the land (G-block), 39 of Waltair uplands to Mandal Revenue Inspector, Visakhapatnam within 30 days of serving the notice. The said notice was served on the declarant company through substituted service on 15.12.1997 on the declarant company, since section 10(5) notice was not complied within stipulated period of 30 days from the date of service of notice by the declarant on 15.12.1997, copies were affixed on Collector's Office and section 10(6) draft authorizing Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the land to an extent of Hec.4.3101 sq.mts of Waltair uplands, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Vishakapatnam was authorised to take possession of the surplus land vide order dated 16.01.1998 under section 10(6) 22 by the 3rd respondent. Hence, the notices served by the respondents are valid since the respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the provisions of ULC Act by issuing notice to Hindustan Polymeres and Hindustan Polymer is a unit of Mcdowell Co. ltd.
34. In a decision relied upon by the petitioner's counsel in N.KOMURAIAH VS. SPECIAL OFFICER, ULC, WARANGAL1 wherein the AP High Court held that without passing an order under Section 8(4) of ULC Act the respondent authority proceeding to pass orders under Section 10(5) of the Act was erroneous. This case is not applicable to the case on hand as in the instant case sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by sending notice and on failure to respond to the said notice, the respondent authorities taken steps by directing to deliver possession.
35. Another decision relied upon by the petitioner is reported in STATE OF A.P. vs. VENKATA RAO 2 wherein it was held that if at any time the State Government is satisfied that any of the condition on which exemption is granted has not been complied with, it shall be competent for the state government to withdraw by an order such exemption after giving reasonable opportunity. The same has been complied with by the respondent authorities. Hence, the said decision is in fact applicable to respondent authorities. In so far as decision of P.LAKSHMI KANTA RAO AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP AND 1 (1998)3 ALT 471 2 2004(4) SCC 220 23 OTHERS3 the burden is on the respondent authorities to prove that procedure as contemplated under Section 10 is followed, it is evident from the facts that mandatory procedure is followed.
36. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner company reported in U.A.BASHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER4 at paras 14, 15, 16 and 23, pertains to partition deed obtained by appellants vendor in the year 1984. As per schedule I, category D of the Principal Act a person is entitled to hold 2000 sq. metres land, in such case the competent authority erred in concluding that declaring one Padmanabha Holds excess land wherein that survey number had fallen to the share of appellants vendor. In fact in light of the partition deed Padmanabha has right to file declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act, in respect of suit property therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated. Therefore, order passed by the competent authority in the year 1994 without issuing the notice to the appellant was not valid however the respondents contended that after issuance of notification under Section 10(3) the suit property vested to the Government the declarant was given an opportunity to put forth his objections. Since the appellant has not filed the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act, the question of issuing notice does not arise proper notices were issued the matter was remitted back to the High Court to settle the questions of fact whether appellants claim over the suit property was valid and whether he was in actual possession of the suit property 3 (2015)3 ALD 248 4 (2021) 5 SCC 313 24 and whether he had locus standi to pray for abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act.
37. The facts of the above case are different from the case on hand since the government already taken over the property and handed over the possession of land in question to APIIC much prior to the commencement of the Repeal Act. As such the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
38. The decision of MUTHULAKSHMI ACHI has no application to the facts of the case for the following reasons:
Section 20(1) of the Act envisages exemption of vacant land possessed by petitioner Company in excess of ceiling limit from the provisions of the Act subject to certain conditions. For non compliance of such conditions even after extension of time the impugned order has been passed withdrawing exemption. Such order of exemption cannot be read into the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. While provisions of Section 20 of the Act envisages grant of exemption of excess land from the provisions of the Act or withdrawal of exemption granted as the case may be, Section 23 envisages allotment of vacant land acquired under the provisions of the Act in the manner prescribed thereunder. Therefore both the provisions operate in entirely different fields. Therefore one provision cannot be taken in aid of the other. Such reading down of the provisions would be contrary to the intent and object of the Act. 25
39. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in DISHAN DAS AND OTHER vs. STATE OF PUNJAB 5. The petitioner relied on paragraph 14 of the said judgment wherein it was held that the action of the government in taking law into their own hands and dispossessing the petitioners by display of force exhibits a callous attitude in utter disregard to normal requirements of rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government. The said decision is not applicable to the instant case on hand as the government has not taken forceful possession without following any proper procedure.
40. In the other decision relied upon by the petitioner's counsel in S.P.CHANGALVARAJU NAIDU vs. JAGANNATH6 it was held that fraud vitiates all such acts is not disputed but there is no fraud committed in the case on hand by the respondent authorities. Hence it is not applicable.
41. The contention of the petitioner is that all the statutory notices in respect of 4.3101 hectares of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam of the 3 rd respondent should be in the name of Mc.Dowell Company and any notices, orders against Hindustan Polymers including notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6) and alleged panchanama dated 16.01.1998 are illegal and mala fide action of the 3rd respondent without notice to the Mc. Dowell company and contrary to statutory provisions of ULC Act under sections 8(4), 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6) and paper created, manipulated on M/s.Hindustan Polymers is not only illegal, unlawful and 5 AIR 1961 SC 1570 6 (1994) 1 SCC 1 26 non-est in the eye of law cannot be accepted as, it is evident that consequent to the enactment of ULC Act 1976, M/s. Hindustan Polymers have filed a statement under Section 6(1) of ULC Act 1976 and declaration was numbered as C.C. 6698/76 in respect of the land admeasuring 101.3985 Hectares. Later notification under Section 10(1) was illegal and it was published in A.P. Gazette dated 24.12.1981.
42. The Government in its G.O.Ms. No.567 Revenue dated 05.07.1997 stated and issued an amendment that the name of the Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd., should be read as Hindustan Polymers, a division of Mc. Dowell and Company Ltd., and the name of the LG Chemicals Ltd., as LG Group of South Korea should be read as LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., wherever it occurs in the Government Orders - Subsequently government issued notification under Section 10(1) in respect of land admeasuring 4.3101 in T.S.No. 1011/36 of Waltair Ward along with other extent of land and the same was published on 09.10.1997. The Declaration under Section 10(3) was also issued on 24.10.1997 and it was published in A.P. State Gazette on 13.11.1997. Notice under Section 10(5) was also issued to declarant company on 09.12.1997 directing them to hand over possession of schedule land admeasuring 4.3101 hectare to the Mandal Revenue Inspector (urban), Visakhapatnam within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, and it was sent to the LG Polymers Ltd, Vizag and the company in its letter dated 20.12.1997 returned the said cover and failed to hand over the said cover to revenue department as the company did not hand over. The said order under Section 10(6) of the Act were issued on 16.01.1998 authorizing the Mandal 27 Revenue Inspector (urban), Vizag to take over possession of schedule land admeasuring Hec. 4.3101 sq. mts in T.S.No.1011/1A1A2 of Waltair Ward (Waltair uplands) and accordingly the Mandal Revenue Inspector had taken over possession of the said land through panchanama report on 16.01.1998.
43. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer had taken over possession by conducting panchanama on 16.01.1998. Hence, it is clear that the procedure contemplated under ULC Act was followed and the land was handed over to APIIC on 20.10.2004. Once the possession is taken over by virtue of ULC Act, no fresh notifications need be given. Later Mc. Dowell & Co., has started agitating against termination of exemption and taking over of surplus land from M/s.Hindustan Polymers Ltd., and they have filed the following writ petitions, writ appeals, in the erstwhile High Court of A.P and also filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.
Sl.No. WP/WA/SLP Nos. Date & result of the WP
1. WP. 23773/1998 The High Court in its Common order
dated 08.09.2000 disposed of three writ
WP. 33741/1998 petitions in which W.P.No.33741/ 1998
WP. 9481/1999 was allowed by setting aside the
G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26.07.1997 and the
remaining two writ petitions were closed
44. Against the disposal of writ petition in favour of the petitioner, the government filed W.A.No.128/2000 against the W.P.No.9481/1999, W.A.No.1283/2000 against the W.P.No.33741/1998, W.A.No.1284/2000 against the W.P.No.23773/1998 and the High Court in its Common order dated 28 16.11.2001 allowed the writ appeals of government and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 08.09.2000 questioned in the writ appeal.
Sl.No. WP/WA/SLP Nos. Date & result of the WP
1. WA.No.1576/2001 The Division Bench of the erstwhile High
against Court in its Common order dated 16.11.2001
W.P.No.9481/1999 dismissed the writ appeals of the appellant
company.
2. W.A.No.1630/2001 SLP's filed by company against the order against the dated 16.11.2001 of the D.B of the High Court W.P.No.23773/1998 were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.04.2002.
3. Review petition The Review petition of the company to apex (Civil) Nos. 288- court to review the dismissal orders in SLP's 292/2002 in the were dismissed by the Apex Court on Supreme Court of 27.02.2003.
India
45. The petitioner company agitated its plea in various legal forums as shown above, the 1st respondent on the other hand pursuant to disposal of writ appeals in favour of the government has taken steps to utilize the surplus land of Hec.4.3101 sq.mts of Waltair Ward which had vested with the government free from all encumbrances. Since the possession of land has been taken over, the government in G.O.Ms.431 dated 23.03.2003 and G.O.Ms.1356 dated 27.12.2003 have allotted the land in Waltair Ward to various government departments. The declarant company having lost its case on withdrawal of exemption by government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 20.07.1997 in all legal forums, has filed applications before the 3rd respondent seeking exemption 29 under Section 21(1) of the Act to retain the surplus extent in T.S.No.1011 of Waltair Ward for purpose of construction of dwelling houses to weaker sections employees of the company. The contention of the petitioner company is that the issue of earlier litigation is separate which is the proceedings under Section 20 of the ULC Act and after withdrawal of earlier G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26.07.1997 which was in litigation upto 03.04.2002 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to seek retention of land under Section 21 of ULC Act and Rule 11(6) of the Act. While the matter was under active consideration the petitioner company filed W.P.No.11591/2004 seeking early disposal of exemption application before the 3rd respondent. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent rejected the claim as barred by limitation as per rule 11 (b) as the 3rd respondent order was on 05.08.2004 and later W.P.No.11591/2004 was also disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 33 of the Act against the rejection order of the 3rd respondent.
46. Pursuant to rejection of exemption application under Section 21(1) of the Act, allotment of surplus land in T.S.No.1011 of Waltair Ward to various government departments has been received and the government cancelled all allotment orders in favour of Waltair lands vide G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 19.10.2004 and allotted the land to APIIC, Hyderabad for development of IT park and possession was handed over on 20.10.2004. Meanwhile, W.A.No.1712/2004 was dismissed W.P.No.11591/2004 was also dismissed on 03.11.2004 holding that the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal. Appeal preferred by petitioner company under section 33 of the Act before the 2nd respondent and 30 W.P.No.24474/2004 filed against the inaction of appellate authority to dispose of the same was dismissed to pursue the appeal. W.A.No.279/2005 was allowed on 24.02.2005 with a direction to take up the appeal. The petitioner company in another round of litigation filed W.P.No.6271/2005 questioning allotment of land to APIIC when the appeal is pending with the 2nd respondent, the W.P was dismissed on 21.03.2005 with a direction to urge the grounds in appeal. W.A.No. 915/2005 preferred was also dismissed on 27.04.2005 holding that this is clear abuse of process of law. Review was also dismissed on 08.06.2005.
47. Meanwhile, the petitioner company filed another writ petition in W.P.No.10951/2005 against rejection of interim stay by the 3rd respondent in ULC appeal VSP/87/2004. The Hon'ble High Court in its interim order dated 17.05.2005 held that any allotment of surplus land in subject to result of appeal under section 33 of the Act. The 2nd respondent finally disposed off the ULC Appeal VSP/87/2004 dated 04.10.2005 holding that he did not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 05.08.2004 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner company under section 21 of the Act.
48. While the appeal is pending for disposal the appellant company filed further applications to implead Chief Secretary and other respondents in appeal an amendment to the prayer in appeal petition in view of recent G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 21.03.2005 issued after filing of the appeal. The 2nd respondent rightly held that scope of appeal cannot be enlarged by the appellant to raise unconnected issue out of G.O.Ms.No.11 and thereby rejected the application. 31
49. The petitioner company made application to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to make applicable the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 21.03.2005. Since no orders were passed W.P.No.26009/2005 seeking direction to pass orders on petitioners applications and to direct respondent not to enter into any sort of agreements over petitioners land of 4.3101 hectares of Waltair Ward till disposal of applications to extend the herewith of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 21.03.2005. Thus the petitioner company having lost its case in all the forums of judiciary reverted back by seeking statutory entitlement under section 21 of the Act in respect of surplus land in a different way.
50. As per Section 21 of the Act, the holder of surplus land only claim the land held by him in excess whereas the petitioner company herein is no longer holding surplus land in question and hence cannot claim any sort of relief in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The appeal before the 2nd respondent is only against the order of the 3rd respondent rejecting the application under Section 21 of the Act.
51. Even as per Rule 11(b) of the Rules framed under ULC Act, 1976, the declaration under section 21 of the Act shall be filed within 1139 days from the date on which such a vacant land ceased to be exempted. The petitioner has filed the same on 03.02.2004 which is beyond the stipulated period under the said Rule. The plea of petitioner that cause of action arose on 03.04.2002 when its review petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court and time starts from that date for filing declaration under Section 21 is misconceived and is not 32 tenable. As such limitation has to be calculated from the date on which the land ceases to be exempted i.e., from the date of G.O in which exemption granted earlier is withdrawn. As such claim of the petitioner company in this regard is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the 2nd respondent has rightly confirmed the orders of the 3rd respondent as the application of the petitioner company is not in accordance with Section 21 of the Act and rule 11(b) of the Rules formed under the Act. So far as W.P.No.26009/ 2005 is concerned petitioner company having lost its case at each and every point is now claiming shelter in terms G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 21.03.2005 only with an evil intention to grab the land vested to government/the 1st respondent under the provisions of a statute and the government disposed of the same in accordance with the powers vested with it under section 23 of the Act and they allotted the same to APIIC for development of IT Park in the land in question.
52. The Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No.1282, 1283 and 1284/2000 and 1576 and 1630 of 2001 vide its order dated 16.11.2001 already held that the question of procedure under Sections 6, 8 and 9 of the Act does not arise at the stage of withdrawal of exemption. Such a procedure to be followed when a declaration under section 6(1) of the Act has been filed and the same was affirmed by the Apex Court.
53. Insofar as W.P.No.21235 of 2009 to consider the representation of the petitioner company in terms of Repeal Act it is clear from the proceedings of the respondents that the possession of surplus land was taken over in the month of 33 January, 1998 after following due process of law as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. After the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of AP on 27.03.2008 all pending proceedings initiated under the Act have abated. On the basis of the material available on record it is clear that the land in question to an extent of 4.3101 Hectares already taken over and was allotted to APIIC Long back on 19.10.2004 and possession was handed over on 20.10.2004. Since the possession was already taken over and handed over to APIIC long back in the year 2004 itself the writ petition also gets abated in view of the Repeal Act, 1999.
54. The Government is having power to exempt any land for public purpose and also having power to exempt from the provisions of Chapter III in Sections 3 to 24. The said power is a statutory power vested with the government as held by Supreme Court in THANDUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA7 before a statutory order is passed there should be an application of mind. In the relevant case justice has not only been done but apparently seem to be done.
55. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARASWATHI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX8 wherein the apex court held that on amalgamation of companies the transfer company loses its identity and merges with the transferee company. In fact this decision is application to the present writ petitions also as it was held by the apex court that true effect and character of amalgamation depends on the terms of the scheme of merger. As per orders of 7 1996(3) SCC 6907 8 1990 (Supp) SCC 675 34 High Court of Bombay and Madras in Company petitions all assets and liabilities of M/s.Hindustan Polymers were transferred in favour of Mc.Dowell Company ltd.
56. In LINGA RAO vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.9 the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that proceedings initiated under the ULC Act were quashed and that subject lands are no longer surplus lands. In the instant case proceedings initiated are concluded but not quashed. Hence not applicable.
57. The other contention of the petitioner that even subsequent to vesting of the land in the Government the petitioner is entitled to make a declaration under Section 20(2) of the Act. substantiating its plea with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, ULC HYDERBAD AND ANOTHER vs. P.S.RAO10, held that Section 20 application is maintainable even if final order of vesting of excess land was passed under Section 33 of the ULC Act but the instant case is not with respect to seeking exemption under Section 20 of the Act, in fact exemption was granted and later withdrawn for violation of conditions. Therefore the decision is not of much help to support the case of the petitioner.
58. In another decision relied upon by the petitioner in STATE OF A.P. vs. G.V.MOHAN11 it was held that to decide the issue whether provisions of repeal Act are attracted to the case on hand it is to see whether possession of vacant 9 2017(4) ALT 9 10 AIR 1000 SC 843 11 2014(4) ALD 757 (DB) 35 land remained with the declarant or not. The petitioner herein admits that possession with APIIC and hence seeking to set aside the proceedings of the respondents in allotting the land to APIIC. Hence it is evident that possession of the vacant land is not with the declarant. Hence the above case has no application to the present case.
59. In VINAYAK KASHINATH vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that where possession of land is not taken over by the State Government, further proceedings under the Repeal Act will not survive.
60. Another decision of ANKIT KUMAR vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL13 that no adverse orders should be passed against parties without hearing them is also not applicable to petitioner as sufficient opportunity of hearing is provided to them.
61. In ANGOORI DEVI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH14 it was held when factum of possession not taken over by the Government all proceedings under the Act have abated as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The above decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand since the possession is already taken long back prior to coming into force of repeal act. Same is the case of MANGALESAN vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH15 wherein possession was already taken over prior to coming into force of Act 1999. 12 2012(4) SCC 718 13 2009(2) SCC 703 14 2000 (1)Supp SC 295 15 2014(15) SCC 332 36
62. In TULSI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY vs. STATE OF AP 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where land owner and the society to whom exemption was granted violated the conditions subject to which exemption was granted, cancellation of such exemption is justified. The said decision applies to the case on hand.
63. So far as W.P.No.27111 of 2009 which was filed by petitioner company challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing permission to peruse the entire file in C.C.No.6698 of 1976 and refusal to furnish copies of entire file under RTI Act stating that it would prejudice the contentions of the state in W.P.No.2690 of 2007 and W.P.No.11421 of 2009 does not find any merit for consideration as parties to the lis filed affidavits, counter affidavits and material papers in supporting their claims and defences which have been dealt with as above.
64. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 04.10.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent herein.
65. In view of the above said observations, it is found that there are no valid and sustainable grounds made out in these writ petitions.
66. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16
(2000)1 SCC 533 37 As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 04.01.2024 LMV 38 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.26009 of 2005, 2690 of 2007, 11421 of 2008, 21235 of 2009 and 27111 of 2009 04.01.2024 LMV