Dismissed

G. Purushotham Naidu v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Jun 2024WP/7405/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging colourable acquisition of lands for an industrial park at the behest of private respondents and seeking investigation and prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found parallel civil suits pending over the same subject matter and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

G. Purushotham Naidu Vs The Union of India — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010016102012

¶2

[3310]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDA Y ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUN E TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7405 OF 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Purushotham Naidu ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union Of India and O thers ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶12

1.MAHESWARA RA O KUNCHEAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶13

1.M UMA DEVI (CEN T RAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.BALAJI MEDAMAL L I 3.S SRINIVAS REDDY 4.VIVEK CHANDRA S EKHAR S 5.G MANOHAR 6.C SUMON 7.P ROY REDDY 8.HARINATH N (DE P UTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 9.THE ADVOCATE G ENERAL The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶16

“to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (1) directing respondents 1 to 3 to cause an investigation by an independent and impartial investigating agency into the colourable acquisition of lands by the 4^th respondent at the behest of the 9^th and 10^th respondent, without ever taking recourse to Chapter VIII of the Land Acquisition Act;

¶17

(2) directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to prosecute Respondent No.10 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also the cognate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and other allied laws in force, for abusing the power of office, for subverting the process of rule of law, and for acquiring and amassing assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power and authority;

¶18

(3) directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 into the acts of misdeeds of the Respondent No.9, bordering on land grabbing, in violation of the provisions of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and resume the lands in excess of ceiling, inasmuch as the said lands all ready stood vested in the State; and

¶19

(4) and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶20

The present writ petition came to be filed to ventilate the grievance of

¶21

the petitioner as to deprivation of property in the hands of the respondents, who have acted and have been acting to the dictates of the respondents 9 and 10. The 5^th respondent is a functionary of the 4^th respondent, heading the zonal office of the 4^th respondent at Tirupati. The respondents 6 and 7 are the heads of the District Revenue Administration.

¶22

While the matter stood thus, 6^th respondent issued notification dated

¶23

16.05.2011 in VAARTHA News paper, dated 18.05.2011 allegedly by invoking

¶24

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the 4^th respondent to acquire, for the purpose of establishing an Industrial Park, certain agricultural lands, including the public road. The petitioner and others are affected persons has submitted an application dated 25.02.2011 to the 5^th respondent under Right to Information Act, who supplied the information dated 25.06.2011. Having obtained a copy of communication from the 4^th respondent to the 6^th respondent, some of the villagers made a representation to the 4^th respondent questioning the wisdom behind the proposal of acquiring a public road, though it was not in the first place required by the 4^th respondent, ostensibly at whose instance the alleged acquisition is took place. Apart from that the villagers have also made representations to the revenue authorities requesting them the approach road to the village should not be acquitted, but in vain.

¶25

On 23.05.2011 the Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat also passed a resolution for the preservation of the road. The Panchayat Raj Department has spent huge amounts for laying a proper bitumen topped road. The alleged public purpose i.e establishing an Industrial Park in a remote village defies logic, if it were not meant for sub-serving the avaricious and covetous interests of an existing industry, M/s Galla Foods Pvt., Ltd, which belongs to the 9^th respondent and which initially was established on private lands after purchasing the same, rather than through the process of acquisition. The lands of the petitioner are situated in Thenepalli Revenue Village. Thus the petitioner is affected person and his lands are sought to be acquired. Some of

¶26

the villagers have filed W.P.No.15308 of 2011 and this Court held that the petitioners are permitted to raise their objections within one week from the date of receipt of the order. If any such objections are raised, the 5^th respondent therein shall consider the same before taking further steps. But the respondents have not paid any heed to their request. On contrary, the entries in the Encumbrance Certificate reveal that the 9^th respondent has purchased various individual extents in Thenepalli Revenue Village from the land owners in land acquisition proceedings No.G3/7209/2005, dated 09.12.2005 by misusing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, through the District Administration. Again in the year 2008, the District Revenue Officials visited the lands of Thenepalli Revenue Village to acquire the same in favour of 9^th respondent for industrial purpose. It is evident that the land was acquired at the behest of respondents 9 and 10 under colour of developing an industrial park/ Digital World City by the 4^th respondent and soon thereafter the entire extent was given away to the 8^th respondent without any transparency, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶27

Heard Mr. Maheswara Rao Koncheam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondents 2, 3 and 7 and Mr. Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 10.

¶28

Per contra, respondents 2, 3 and 7 have filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner has made a representation dated 14.11.2011 requesting to drop the Land Acquisition Proceedings dated

¶29

16.05.2011. 5-A enquiry is under process before the Land Acquisition Officer. As per report of the Tahsildar, Puthalapattu dated 10.04.2012 it has informed that no such Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat is existing and the said Lakshmipuram Village comes under Thenepalle Gram Panchayat and as seen from the Register of resolution, no such resolution was passed on 23.05.2011 about preservation and formation of BT road with the Government Funds. It is a fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has issued an endorsement dated 24.06.2011 that some of the lands were acquired in Puthalapattu Mandal for developing industries in Puthalapattu and Bangarupalyam Mandals. A Draft Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short “the Act”) and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor vide letter dated 21.07.2008 has also reported that the pattadars of the few lands have given consent for acquisition of their lands and submitted a report after conducting enquiry. After passing orders under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved vide proceedings dated 12.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same, one A. Muthyalaiah and others have filed W.P.No.2716 of 2009 seeking relief not to dispossess them from the land pursuant to the land acquisition notification dated 25.04.2008. Excluding the lands covered by the said writ petition, consent was approved to an extent of Ac. 22.17 cents at the rate of Rs.2,39,614/- per acre and normal award was approved for an extent of Ac. 2.96 cents at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor passed an Award No.1/2010-11, dated 18.03.2010, Award No. 2/2010-11,

¶30

dated 09.04.2010 and amount of compensation was also disbursed to the consent awardees. With regard to the amount Ac. 2.96 cents the amount is available in the Bank, since the awardees have not received the amount yet. Thereafter, W.P.No.2716 of 2009 was allowed on 07.02.2012 by setting aside

¶31

the notification. Therefore, no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already filed writ petition questioning the 4(1) notification and hence, this writ petition is totally frivolous and misconceived. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶32

Per contra, respondents 9 and 10 have filed counter-affidavits respectively denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that M/s Amara Raja Power Systems purchased at market value undeveloped Government land in Karakambadi Village under various G.Os. The lands were acquired by the Government for the APIIC i.e 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent was formed to promote industrial growth in the State had allotted the land to the industries. M/s Amara Raja group of companies are set up in remote rural areas, where industrialists were not willing to venture. No exception can be taken into the allotment of land by the 4^th respondent to M/s Amara Raja Group of Companies, which have an excellent track record of developing and establishing world class industries providing employment and contributing to the exchequer as well as to the social well being in rural area. Therefore, it cannot be said that recourse should have been taken only through part VII of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶33

There was no illegality was committed by the respondents 9 and 10 and there was no abuse of power, subversion of system or sacrifice of good governance nor were decisions taken for politically expediency. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the same.

¶34

Perused the record.

¶35

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and vehemently argued at length based on material documents filed along with the writ petition.

¶36

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 10 has filed writ affidavit on 29.04.2024 by placing subsequent developments after counteraffidavits filed and contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the alienations made in favour of the respondents/ industry, as the same was acquired by the 4^th respondent through the process of acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and thereafter alienated in favour of the 8^th respondent as per rules and regulations. It is further contended that no land of the petitioner was acquired either for the purpose of respondents/ industry or any of the sister concern of the 8^th respondent.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 10 further contended that a compound wall was constructed as per the allotment made by the APIIC and in compliance of the terms of agreement of sale. However, M/s Galla Goods had laid a butamin top road to reach Lakshmipuram Village in the property of M/s Galla Foods Pvt., Ltd., which was allotted by APIIC to have free access to

¶38

the Lakshmipuram Villagers. The petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2015 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor against M/s Galla Good Pvt., Ltd., wherein an Advocate/ Commissioner has also inspected the premises and submitted a detailed report stating that there is no existence of road as alleged in the writ petition. However, the said suit was withdrawn by the writ petition vide Memo dated 19.04.2024. Later a suit in O.S.No.306 of 2015 was instituted by the M/s Galla Goods against the petitioner on the file of the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and injunction is in force. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 10 have placed on record the copy of injunction order along with petition and affidavit in I.A.No. 638 of 2015 in O.S.No.306 of 2015 and copy of Advocate Commissioner’s Report vide I.A.No.939 of 2015 in O.S.No.72 of 2015.

¶39

As could be seen from the interim order granted in I.A.No.638 of 2015 in O.S.No.306 of 2015, earlier M/s Mangal Industries Limited, Thenepalli, which is sister concern company of the 8^th respondent have obtained interim injunction against the petitioner herein in respect of the subject land therein. Further, as could be seen from the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner in I.A.No.939 of 2015 in O.S.No.72 of 2015, which shows that there was no existence of road as alleged in the writ petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 10 has placed on record the letter addressed by the District Collector to the Principal Secretary to Government, Infrastructure and Investment Department vide

¶41

Roc.G3/9727/2010, dated 07.05.2015 with regard to acquisition of land for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC regarding. Wherein, it was instructed that the land acquisition process has to be initiated per New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and further made a request to communicate the office that the requisition in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 read with G.O.Ms.No.389 Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department dated 20.11.2014 for taking necessary further action in the matter.

¶42

Therefore, the District Collector, Chittoor had followed due procedure in acquiring the land for establishment of industrial park. It is made clear that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 72 of 2015 and the same was withdrawn after filing the report by the Advocate-commissioner therein, assuming that there was no existence of road as alleged in the writ petition, which is against his case. Further, in view of interference by the petitioner, the 8^th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.306 of 2015 and obtained interim injunction therein.

¶43

Therefore, this Court finds there were suits in between the petitioner and respondents 8 to 10 before the courts below with regard to same subject matter. Further the suit in O.S.No. 306 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and the same is under trial and adduced evidence of petitioner therein. Since, subject matter is pending before the trial court, which is competent authority to scrutinize the issue in proper perspective basing on the evidence, the petitioner instead of

¶44

approaching this Court, it is better to pursue the issue before the trial court, if he had any grievance for redressal.

¶45

Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to prosecute the 10^th respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also resume the lands in excess of ceiling, inasmuch as the said lands all ready stood vested in the State. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be dismissed.

¶46

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶48

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO KK

G. Purushotham Naidu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Purushotham Naidu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Rajpurohith Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Donipati Persi Hephziba Vs the State of Ap

Basireddy Dayakar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary

Gella Kamala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muppalaneni Seshagiri Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sattu Santhi Kiran Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh