Disposed

Life Insurance Corporation of India, v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Apr 2023WP/29942/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Government undertaking's cancellation of a land allotment. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court directed the petitioner to explain the difficulty in executing the lease deed within two weeks, requiring the respondent to consider the fresh application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of by directing petitioner to submit a fresh application explaining delay in lease registration within two weeks, and respondent to consider it within four weeks.

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

iiS I

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29942 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by its Zonal Manager, South Central Zonal Officer, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER AND

¶10

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking) Visakhapatham Steel Plant, Adrhinistrative Building, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstanpes stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandanius declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the proceedings in Ref:TA/Land/106/752 dated .20,.12.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation, of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent not to take possession of the site in an extent of 1000 sq. Meters allotted to the petitioner through proceedings of the respondent dated 19.03.2002 without following the due procedure of law.

¶13

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 37408 OF 2014)

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ip the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to take possession of the site in an extent of 1000 sq. Meters allotted to the petitioner through proceedings of the respondent dated 19.03.2002 without following the due procedure of law after staying all further proceedings pursuant to the letter in Ref. No.TA/Land/106/469 dated 20.09.2014 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case otherwise the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

"^1

¶21

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.29942 of 2014

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶25

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief

¶26

“...to issue a writ, order of direction one m the nature of writ of mandamus dedaring the action of the respondent inissuing the proceedings in Ref:TA/Land/106/752 dated 20-12-2010 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and . consequently direct the Respondent not to take possession of the site in an extent of 1,000 sqirrieters allotted to the petitioner through,proceedings of the /espondent dated 19-. 03-2002 withoutfollowing due procedure oflaw "

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that, at request of the petitioner corporation, the respondent allotted 1 JBS sq.mts. of land on 20.06.1987 in its steel plant area for construction of a branch office buildings for providing better services to its customers especially for the people in and around steel plaiit area. The petitioner paid the necessary rent and took possession of the site on 23.02.1988.

¶28

Later on, the respondent changed the location vide its letter dated 13.02.1992, as the site which was allotted to the petitioner was required for its operations. Thereafter, as the changed site

¶29

¶30

¶31

**• ;• *** K **** » /• •

¶32

was not suitable to the petitioner, the petitioner addressed letters dated 30.12.1994 and 30.06.1995 requesting the respondent to allot some other site as it is not feasible. Thereafter, the respondent allotted site near Telephone Exchange for a period of 33 years from the date of handing over the possession vide its letter dated 30.06.1995, But, however, due to some procedural delay, the construction could not be taken up.

¶33

At request of the petitioner, the respondent allotted the site at Aurobindo School vide its letter dated 19.03.2002 and thereafter, the possession of the land was given to the petitioner on 01.04.2006 after paying the amount payable to the respondent. -The petitioner with the permission of the respondent constructed a compound wall on 14.05.2008. Thereafter, the necessary lease deed could not be executed due to some disagreement with some of the terms and conditions in the agreement. However, the petitioner corporation sought extension on the lease period as the original lease period was going to expire.

¶34

5. While the matter being so, when the petitioner corporation was making arrangement for the construction of building in the said site, the respondent issued proceedings vide Ref: TA/Land/106/752, dated 20.12.2010 stating that the allotted site was not utilized by the petitioner. The petitioner vide its letter

i--..

I i

dated 30.12.2010 requested the respondent to reconsider the decision of reconstruction of the buildiiig, which was rejected vide its letter dated 16.01.2014.

¶40

6. ■ Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that, though the lease deed has been cancelled, the possession of the said land still lies with the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner once again made a request on 13.03.2014 to reconsider the ^lotment of the same land. In pursuance of which, the respondent issued another letter dated 10.06.2014 requesting the petitiorier to hand over the possession of the site. For which, the petitioner got issued reply on 25.06.2014 seeking some time to get instructions from the Central Office of the petitioner Corporation. Challenging the said inaction of the respondent vide Ref: TA/Land/106/752, dated 20.12.2010, the present writ petition is filed.

¶41

7. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 08.10.2014, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order which reads as follows:

¶42

“There shall be interim direction as prayed for.”

¶43

In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner

¶44

continued the possession of tiie said site.

¶45

•’’Sc

¶46

¶47

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that though the petitioner has been given sufficient time since 2006 for registration of the lease deed and thereafter for construction of the office building, the petitioner has utterly failed in doing so. It is noteworthy that since the original allotment of land on lease in 1987, till now the LIC has not executed the lease deed during the - ------ during the past 27 years including 14 years at the second location. It is evident that the respondent has given ample number of opportunities to the petitioner during the period from 2006 to 2010 before cancellation of land allotment and then proceeded further to take possession of land in 2014 after nearly 4 years of reminders and correspondence. '

¶48

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.04.2023, this Court .... Lo direct me learned counsel for the was pleased to direct the learned respondent to obtain instructions from the respondent as to whether they are willing to re-consider the case of the petitioner by giving them some more . time for registration of the said land in their favour.

¶49

In view of the pendency of the writ petition, Mr.K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned Standing Counsel, has produced a copy of the mail received by the respondents wherein it is stating that “the parly (M/s.LIC) has been given number of opportunities for

/• I

execution of lease deed before cancellation of allotment. Since allotment of land is already cancelled and physical possession was taken oyer, revocation of cancellation of allotment is not possible.

¶54

The said fact of taking ovef the physical possession of the said land cannot be admitted in view of the. interim directions granted by this Court, wherein, this Court has directed the respondent not to take possession of the site in ah extent of 1000 Sq.mts. allotted to the petitioner through proceedings of the respondent dated 19.03.2002 without following the due process of law while cancelling the said allotment. However, the respondents have never stated that they have followed the due procedure while cancelling the said allotment.

¶55

. 12. The main objection raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that though ample opportunities/several reminders given to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to come forward for the registration of the lease deed.

¶56

In view of the fact that the physical possession of the- said site is still with the petitioner, in view of the interim direction granted by this Court, instead of going into merits, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a fresh application explaining the difficulty for not coming

f ! t

I i

<br>..

forward for execution of the registration of the lease deed since 2006 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of ' copy of this order and on receiving the said application, the sole respondent is directed to consider the said request made by the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶62

¶63

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶64

no order as to costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition .

¶66

shall stand closed.

¶67

SD/-T. MADHAVI ASSISTANT f^lSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman and Managing Director, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Administrative Building, Visakhapatnam.

¶72

One CC to Sri. Singam Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to Sri. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CD Copies

Sdkr . /

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.29942 of 2014

¶81

^'2

¶82

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Life Insurance Corporation of India, v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corporation of India, v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramanjaneya Constructions and Lifters, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.V.S.N. Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Facor Alloys Ltd. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Kamesh, S/o.S.Seshaiah, aged 28 years, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal secretary

Vajram Polymers Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Government College Hostel, Vs v. Venkateswarlu